Trending Now

All Articles

3225 Articles

New Zealand Wary Over Increase in Litigation Funding After Mainzeal Judgment

In a recent decision by a New Zealand High Court, the directors of failed construction company Mainzeal - including former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley - were ordered to pay $36MM to creditors. The claim was funded by litigation funder LPF, and many in New Zealand are concerned that the big win will herald a litigation funding revolution - much like what is currently taking place in neighboring Australia. As reported in Newsroom, the New Zealand court found that the directors allowed the company to continue operations for several years, despite being "balance sheet insolvent." Shipley and the other directors argued they had an asset in the form of millions of dollars of debt owed to Chinese parent company Richina Pacific, yet no money from the China parent company ever trickled down to New Zealand. When the company couldn't afford to pay its bills, contractors lost out on $45.5MM, and creditors on $110MM. Justice Cooke found that the Mainzeal directors had not put in place any proper risk assessment measures, and failed in their corporate governance duties. Of the four directors involved, Shipley and one other owe $6MM each, while the remainder is to be paid by Richina. The quartet have Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance totaling $20MM, though it isn't clear how that money is to be allocated. D&O insurance has exploded in cost in neighboring Australia, where litigation funding is helping fuel a number of prominent class action claims. With the big win coming in the Mainzeal case, which was funded by LPF, many New Zealand legal experts are considered about a similar rise in claims, and the resulting impact on insurance costs.

Legal claim launched against rail companies after millions double-pay for fares in London

A claim has been launched in the UK’s specialist competition court by Justin Gutmann, formerly of Citizens Advice, on behalf of millions of passengers who have paid twice for part of their journeys on Southeastern and South Western routes.  

  • Passengers who have held a Travelcard in the period since October 2015 and bought another ticket for a rail journey that is partially covered by their Travelcard have effectively paid twice for part of their rail journey
  • The claim is estimated to be worth around £93 million in damages
  • Millions of passengers who have travelled in and around London may be eligible for compensation

London, February 27th, 2019

A claim on behalf of millions of rail passengers has been filed in the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the operators of the South Western and Southeastern rail franchises.

First MTR South Western Trains, Stagecoach South Western Trains and London & South Eastern Railway are alleged to have not made “boundary” fares readily available for Travelcard holders to purchase, nor making passengers aware of their existence. The rail companies’ failures have left customers with little option but to buy a higher fare than they would have needed because their Travelcard already entitled them to travel for part of their journey.

Boundary fares allow passengers who own a Travelcard to travel beyond the zones covered by their Travelcard without doubling up on payment. Independent research has shown that boundary fares are not readily available through online platforms or over the telephone from South Western or Southeastern and are rarely offered at ticket counters unless expressly requested by passengers. This imposition of an unfair price for fares is an abuse of the companies’ dominant position and in breach of UK and EU competition laws.

The opt-out collective action is being led by Justin Gutmann, an experienced campaigner on both consumer issues and the transport sector.

Gutmann said:

“Passengers in London already pay a lot of money for trains that are often delayed or not even running. Now following extensive research, we have found that some passengers are paying twice for parts of their rail journeys.

We are launching this legal action to ensure that the money that South Western and Southeastern have made from this is returned to those train users.

Millions of rail passengers could be eligible for compensation. Let’s put this right and stop train companies taking passengers for a ride.”

Who is eligible?

Passengers who owned a Travelcard at any time from 1 October 2015 and also purchased a rail fare from a station within the zones of their Travelcard to a destination outside of those zones may be eligible for compensation. Millions of passengers are thought to be affected.

Dorothea Antzoulatos, Director of Charles Lyndon, said “Charles Lyndon has worked extensively with Mr Gutmann to develop this case which seeks to recover compensation for millions of rail passengers who have overpaid as a result of what we believe is the behaviour of the defendants. We are delighted to be working together with Hausfeld & Co to represent Mr Gutmann in what will be the first stand-alone collective action in this country.  A case such as this would not have been practicable before the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and we hope that as a result of this action millions of rail passengers will be able to recover the compensation that is due to them.”

Anthony Maton, Managing Partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP said: “This claim is about rail passengers being able to recover what is rightfully due to them. This is only the fifth collective action in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the first brought without the benefit of an underlying regulatory decision. We’re very pleased to be co-counsel for Mr Gutmann on this ground-breaking case.

Will there be any cost be for class members?

There is no cost for class members. This action is being funded by Woodsford Litigation Funding, a specialist litigation funder. By absorbing both the costs and risks associated with a claim of this size, Woodsford is enabling the claim to be brought and ensuring that as many rail passengers as possible benefit from this legal action.

Woodsford’s Chief Investment Officer, Charlie Morris, stated: “Third party funding facilitates access to justice and is an integral part of bringing collective actions such as this boundary fares claim. Woodsford is looking forward to helping millions of rail passengers achieve the compensation they are entitled to."

What next?

The Tribunal will now determine whether or not Mr Gutmann’s claim is allowed to proceed.  If the claim is permitted to go forward then those affected will not have to pay any legal fees, nor contact lawyers.

Affected passengers who live in the UK will be automatically included in the claim although they can choose to opt-out in due course. Affected passengers who do not live in the UK will also be eligible to join the claim but must proactively opt-in. As the case progresses, we will provide more detail as to what rail users will be required to do to either opt-in, or opt-out.

Anyone who would like to receive further information about the claim, can visit the claim website, BoundaryFares.com, to sign up for updates.

Further information

The claim’s website and social media channels are available from the day of launch, at BoundaryFares.com where affected passengers can sign up to receive further information on the legal proceedings.

Justin Gutmann represents the passengers bringing this legal case against South Western and Southeastern. He is aiming to ensure that the train companies have to pay back the money which they earned from passengers paying twice for part of their journeys. This is estimated to be in the region of £93 million.

Mr Gutmann has a wealth of experience working in the consumer rights sphere and he has strong expertise in the transport sector. He has spent a large part of his professional life dedicated to consumer welfare, public policy and market research.

Mr Gutmann’s final job prior to retirement was as Head of Research and Insight at Citizens Advice.

Mr Gutmann also spent eight years working for London Underground as a Market Planning Manager.

Justin Gutmann is represented by Charles Lyndon and Hausfeld & Co LLP.

Read More
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By Michael German |
In this episode, we speak with Michael German of Vannin Capital about the issue of disclosure. With the recent GOP Senators' push to re-introduce legislation that would mandate disclosure of all third party-funded agreements in class action cases and MDLs, disclosure is on the forefront of all industry participants' minds. Michael recently penned an article suggesting a compromise on the issue: that being mandated limited disclosure in all third party-funded cases, with excess disclosure expressly prohibited. Michael explains his reasoning on the podcast. [podcast_episode episode="3544" content="title,player,details"]

Vannin Capital Names UK Regional Managing Director

Vannin Capital, the global expert in legal finance, has today announced that Rosie Ioannou has been appointed as UK Regional Managing Director.

 Rosie joined Vannin in 2014 as a Managing Director and has since been a driving force behind its growth and development, as well as the evolution of the litigation funding industry in the UK and around the globe. In her new role, she will have overall responsibility for Vannin’s UK business, leading the team of UK Managing Directors. Her appointment underscores Vannin’s ambitious growth objectives for the years ahead, and the role that the UK litigation market will play in realising those ambitions.

Highly regarded for her experience in funding claims in areas such as insolvency, competition and UK group actions, Rosie has been recognised as a Leading Individual in the UK for her work by Chambers & Partners. Prior to joining the Vannin team, she worked for magic circle law firm Allen & Overy.

Commenting on the announcement, Vannin Capital CEO Richard Hextall said: “Rosie has been fundamental to Vannin’s growth since joining the team in 2014, and her breadth of experience and reputation in the market is second to none. She is a natural choice to lead the UK team to the next stage of its growth, as we look to capitalise on the developing market in the UK and internationally.”

Rosie Ioannou said: “This is a really exciting time for Vannin as the London market for litigation funding continues to grow. The business is very well positioned to continue to diversify its portfolio and capitalise on the myriad opportunities that exist. I look forward to tackling this new challenge and helping to lead our talented UK team into the future.”

About Vannin Capital

Established in 2010, Vannin Capital is a global expert in the provision of funding to support individuals, corporate clients and law firms in the successful resolution of high-value litigation and arbitration claims.

From single case funding to portfolio finance, we offer creative capital solutions that are tailored to our clients’ needs. Our global team of legal and financial experts cover the key commercial litigation and arbitration centres from our offices in London, Jersey, Paris, Bonn, New York, Washington, Sydney and Melbourne. More than just capital, we combine global experience with local knowledge to deliver a high standard of service and expertise to our clients around the world.

A major player in the legal finance market, we are a member of the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales (ALF), conducting our business to a high standard in line with its code of conduct.

Read More

DealFlow Announces The Litigation Funding Forum 2019 Agenda

New York, NY, Feb. 22, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via NEWMEDIAWIRE -- DealFlow Events is pleased to announce the agenda for The Litigation Funding Forum 2019 coming up April 4 in New York City. The complete agenda and panel speakers: https://litigationfundingforum.com/agenda/ Here is just some of the information our slate of experts will cover during this must-attend event:
  • Latest trends in the litigation funding marketplace
  • Challenges facing legal counsel with litigation funding
  • Benefits to investors in litigation funding
  • Growth prospects in the marketplace: Leveling the legal playing field
  • What counsel should look for in identifying the right litigation financing firm for clients
  • How litigation funders determine cost to ROI
  • Contracts and risk management
  • Litigation funding in patent and intellectual property cases
The conference keynote speaker is New York State Sen. Rob Ortt, who introduced the Litigation Funding Act. Whether you are a funder, an attorney or a litigation finance consultant, The Litigation Funding Forum 2019 is a can’t-miss event. Panels of experts are ready to answer your questions regarding litigation finance, while exploring the latest legal trends, best practices and insights to maximize the benefits of litigation finance while avoiding challenges that have tripped up others. Corporate sponsors of The Litigation Funding Forum 2019 include Validity Finance, RRBB Accountants + Advisors, and Armadillo Financial Partners. Learn more about the forum at https://litigationfundingforum.com/. This event will likely sell out. Get your tickets today at https://litigationfundingforum.com/tickets/. Questions? Contact DealFlow at (516) 876-8006 or email Charlie Napolitano at charlie@dealflow.com. About DealFlow When it comes to the business of finance, the tag line “A DealFlow Event” is widely recognized as a symbol of quality. We’ve produced over 200 conferences, seminars, and webcasts on a variety of financial topics over the last 16 years. These events are the signature programs in their respective markets, offering high-quality content and unequaled professional networking opportunities. For more information about our events business, visit www.dealflowevents.com. For more information about some of our other projects, visit www.dealflow.com.
Read More

Collaboration between law firm, litigation funder and insurance brokerage creates access to justice enhancing product for owners of intellectual property

Debenhams Ottaway LLP in association with Sparkle Capital Ltd, Sybaris Legal & IP and Acasta Europe Limited have today launched a product to fund claims brought in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (“IPEC”). The product follows collaboration between the innovative law firm, who last year set up a litigation funding panel and Sparkle Capital, a litigation funder. Sybaris Legal & IP, an insurance broker operating in the intellectual property arena will operate one of the distribution channels for the product and Acasta will provide the After The Event insurance. The product can cater for claims valued from £50,000 to £500,000. The fixed recoverable costs in IPEC limit the recoverable costs in stages up to £50,000 (save in some circumstances in which a party beats a Part 36 offer). The IPEC regime is therefore attractive to litigation funders and ATE insurers because it limits exposure for adverse costs particularly where the Arkin cap[1] is under threat from developing jurisprudence. The product is aimed both at the SME market and IP portfolio holders such as brand owners, musicians and the pharmaceutical industry. It covers a variety of different types of Intellectual property claims ranging from trade mark infringement and passing-off to copyright, design right and patent infringement claims.  It combines a discounted conditional fee agreement with Debenhams Ottaway within a funding package from Sparkle Capital to meet the discounted element of the fees and disbursements. The cost of the funding is low by market standards because it is based on a fixed interest rate rather than the market standard “share of the award”. And it is non-recourse as it is covered by the relevant After the Event and Financial Guarantee Insurance provided by Acasta. Commenting on the launch of the product, Debenhams Ottaway lead litigation and dispute resolution Partner, Luke Harrison, who also serves as Chairman of the Commercial Litigation Association said: “The IPEC funding product is essentially an access to justice tool. It enables those who have suffered a legal wrong to obtain redress whilst avoiding the risks associated with litigation. Intellectual property is an intangible asset which is easy for third parties to exploit and profit from. Whilst there are a number of ways IP may be protected, enforcing those rights in practice through the Courts is often the only tool available to protect that value.” Senior Associate and lead Intellectual Property disputes Lawyer at Debenhams Ottaway, Rosie Patterson said: “The IPEC funding product should go some way to addressing the imbalance in resources that we often see between parties in IP disputes, an imbalance that frequently acts as a barrier to Claimants bringing actions to protect their rights.” Tets Ishikawa, Director at Acasta and Senior Adviser at Sparkle Capital, commented: "Acasta and Sparkle are delighted to partner with our forward-looking partners, Debenhams Ottaway and Sybaris Legal & IP, in launching this IPEC Funding Product. The delivery of real access to justice can only progress with a solutions-led approach that lead to products meeting the actual needs of legal claims. This is the result of that approach and is part of our overall strategy to deliver innovative, relevant insurance and funding products to the litigation market."  Commenting on the launch of this new product, Ian Wishart, a director of Sybaris Legal & IP and himself an experienced patent attorney and an inventor, said: “This new funding product will benefit potential litigants before IPEC who have been unable to pursue good claims, sometimes against much larger firms, because of a lack of resources.  It levels the playing field, and enables IPR owners to retain value and leverage those rights.” Notes
  1. Debenhams Ottaway LLP is a leading law firm with offices in Hertfordshire and a London space. The firm acts for high net worth individuals, entrepreneurs and established businesses including, in specialist fields, a number of household brand names. The firm’s litigation and dispute resolution team is known for its entrepreneurial and collaborative approach and fastidious approach to delivering value to clients. The firm also boasts the leading contentious intellectual property team in the northern home countries lead by former city lawyer Rosie Patterson.
  2. Sparkle Capital Ltd was founded in 2014 as a third-party commercial litigation funding business. We are a privately-owned company belonging to the family of Fred Done, who is best known for founding BetFred and various other business interests, including real estate and insurance. We are administered by Acasta Europe Limited, an ATE insurance provider.”
  3. Acasta Europe Ltd provides administrative services to Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd, an insurer founded in 2006 and active in 12 European countries across 9 classes of insurance. We are an active provider of legal expenses insurance in the UK being one of the most trusted and innovative ATE insurance providers in both delegated authority Personal Injury and bespoke commercial, clinical negligence and insolvency cases. We have a core base of loyal partners that we work closely with to provide innovative solutions that enhance their businesses.
  4. Sybaris Legal & IP is a trading identity of Sartorex Group Ltd, which is an accredited Lloyds broker. Sybaris Legal & IP has been broking specialist legal and IP risks for over six years, and has a team of highly experienced brokers and IP specialists, who have been assisting micro-businesses to £100+M turnover companies with IP insurance, After the Event insurance and litigation funding
[1] Whereby funders are ordered to pay adverse costs, but only up to the level that they invested in the case.
Read More

Lawsuit Funding Company Earns Top Rating from TopConsumerReviews.com

TopConsumerReviews.com recently awarded their highest five-star rating to Prime Case Funding, an industry leader in lawsuit funding companies.

Lawsuit funding companies help people with pending lawsuits to access funds prior to the settlement of the case. In other words, these services extend a no-risk loan based on the assumption that their client will win their case. When the case is decided in the client’s favor, the loan is repaid from the proceeds of the lawsuit, plus a predetermined amount of interest. On the other hand, if the client loses the case, there is no obligation to repay the loan.

The deciding factor in securing this time of lending is, naturally, the likelihood of the client eventually winning the case. For that reason, the process typically involves discussions with the attorneys representing both the plaintiff and the defendant, collection of court documents, and so forth. There are a number of trustworthy lawsuit funding services that can help clients get the cash they need now, while waiting for the lawsuit to be concluded.

“Prime Case Funding is the nation’s best source of lawsuit funding,” according to Brian Dolezal of TopConsumerReviews.com, LLC. “As an accredited, “A+” rated company with the Better Business Bureau, PCF can be trusted to handle applications quickly and accurately. They can fund loans from $500 to $1,000,000 and more, on cases ranging from personal injury to false imprisonment. Customers particularly appreciate PCF’s lightning-fast turnaround time on loans, with some receiving payouts in as little as one business day. Because of their ironclad reputation, reasonable pricing, and excellent customer service, Prime Case Funding is our highest-ranked provider of Lawsuit Funding in 2019.”

To find out more about Prime Case Funding and other Lawsuit Funding companies, including reviews and comparison rankings, please visit the Lawsuit Funding category of TopConsumerReviews.com at https://www.topconsumerreviews.com/lawsuit-funding/.

About Prime Case Funding Prime Case Funding is a national full service legal funding firm serving both attorneys and their clients. They work to understand your situation and strive to tailor a financial solution that will meet your specific needs. Litigation financing can reduce financial stress and hardship that results from being in a lawsuit. Prime Case Funding’s service can empower you to “win the waiting game” and get the settlement you deserve.

About TopConsumerReviews.com TopConsumerReviews.com, LLC is a leading provider of reviews and rankings for thousands of consumer products and services. From Lawsuit Funding to Personal Loans and Debt Relief, TopConsumerReviews.com delivers in-depth product evaluations in order to make purchasing decisions easier.

Read More

Republican Senators Reintroduce Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

A group of Republican Senators has reintroduced a bill that would mandate disclosure in class action and MDL contexts. The Senators first introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act (LFTA) last year, but it went nowhere. Now they are making another push with the same legislation. As reported in Law.com, Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska all proposed the legislation that seeks to mandate disclosure of third party financing in class actions and MDLs. The bill stipulates disclosure within 10 days of a case being filed, or 10 days after a litigation funding agreement is signed, assuming the agreement comes mid-case. The bill would also require disclosure in the consumer legal funding context, as plaintiffs seeking cash advances against the outcome of their cases would also have to disclose their funding agreements. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a narrower version of the bill, which stipulated disclosure only in class actions. Subsequent to that, the GOP Senators introduced the LFTA. That bill failed to make any traction, and that was during a GOP-led Congress. Now that the Democrats have taken control of the House, any push for regulating the legal industry is seen as having even less chance to reach approval. Many are viewing the bill's reintroduction as the result of a continued push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to regulate the litigation funding industry. Lisa Rickard, president of Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform, recently issued a statement supporting the bill. "When litigation funders invest in a lawsuit, they buy a piece of the case; they effectively become real parties in interest. Defendants (and courts) have a right to know who has a stake in a lawsuit and to assess whether they are using illegal or unethical means to bring the action," the statement reads.

Vannin Capital Managing Director, Michael German, had this to say: "The proposed Act is another example of special interest groups using their reach in Washington to implement legislation that goes well beyond the issue they purport to address. Vannin has been a vocal proponent of disclosure of (i) the fact that a litigant is funded and (ii) the identity of the funder. Any disclosure in excess of these facts is an overreach that does far more than solve the potential conflicts raised by Senator Grassley and his counterparts. Instead, the proposed Act would unfairly permit defendants facing legitimate lawsuits to gain an improper advantage, and force the parties and the courts into an irrelevant sideshow regarding funding terms."

The bill's reintroduction comes on the heels of the shock letter issued by GCs and senior litigators from 30 companies, asking the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to mandate disclosure of all funding agreements in civil actions. Companies like Microsoft, General Electric, AT&T and Home Depot were all signatories of the letter.
Read More

3rd Circuit to Decide Judicial Authority Over Third Parties in MDLs in Ruling on NFL Concussion Case

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has a heavy decision to make: just how much authority (if any) can a court exercise over a third party (non-party) in a class action or MDL claim? Judge Anita Brody voided the funding contracts between three consumer funders and thousands of ex-NFL players who were suing the league for injuries sustained during their playing years. But did Judge Brody have the authority to void those contracts? That's what the 3rd Circuit must decide. As reported in Reuters, a trio of consumer legal funders - RD Legal, Thrivest, and Atlas Legal Funding - all had funding agreements with ex-players in place. The funding agreements provided players upfront money to pay for lifestyle or medical bills while they awaited their settlement in the NFL concussion case. That settlement eventually came - to the tune of $1 billion. However, Judge Anita Brody voided the funding contracts, claiming in part that the anti-assignment provision of the settlement nullifies the funding contracts. But does a court's authority over the disposition of a settlement extend to third parties, or non-parties in the claim?  Perhaps a court only retains power over a settlement for as long as that court oversees the claim itself, and once the claim is settled and the money is to be disbursed, any funding contracts already in place are beyond the scope of the court's discretion? That is what the 3rd Circuit must now decide, as the funders - led by RD Legal - have appealed her ruling. Thrivest also contends that in voiding the contracts, Judge Brody ignored an arbitration provision in its funding agreements that all disputes between players and funders be brought to arbitration. They claim her lack of deference to the arbitration agreement violates the Federal Arbitration Act. The funders argue that MDLs and class actions are large enough as is, and there must be some boundary placed on them. There is some room for agreement on this point, as class counsel Samuel Issacharoff seemed willing to concede that a court's discretion can't extend into infinity. However, Issacharoff argues that Brody does retain the authority to void contracts that were entered into during the administration of the settlement, even if she maintains no oversight of the monetary disposition. This is a key point, and one that the 3rd Circuit will have to wrestle with. The court is loathe to "stretch the outer bounds of Article III,' according to Judge Bibas of the 3rd Circuit. If the appeals court is to uphold Judge Brody's decision, that may very well be what they end up having to do.