Trending Now

All Articles

3374 Articles
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.

Announcements Commercial

Comprehensive Report on Litigation Funding and Expenses Market 2019-2025

This report studies the Litigation Funding and Expenses Market size by players, regions, product types and end industries, history data 2019-2026 and forecast data 2019-2026; This report also studies the global market competition landscape, market drivers and trends, opportunities and challenges, risks and entry barriers, sales channels, distributors and Porter's Five Forces Analysis. “Litigation Funding and Expenses Market” Size and Outlook 2025 report provide detailed insight into aspects of controlling and enhancing market growth by classifying food additives in the correct way. The research report provides thorough information on market share analysis, market size, consumer volume, key market sectors, diverse regions, key market participants and industry/business tactics. The competitive scenario section of the report provides the major participants operating in the market. Request Sample Copy of this Report at- https://bit.ly/2OW9KxZ Key Strategic Players: Sydney-based IMF Bentham Ltd., Apex, and... This report lists the details of the production and consumption patterns of the business in addition to the current scenarios in the Litigation Funding and Expenses Market and trends in this industry. Also, the market report makes some important proposals for a new project of Commercial and Corporate Card Industry before evaluating its feasibility. Market size is calculable in terms of revenue (USD Million) production volume during the forecast period. Geographically, the Litigation Funding and Expenses market is divided into seven major regions: North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia Pacific, Japan and the Middle East and Africa. North America and Europe have accounted for the top share of total producing revenue across the world due to the quantity of small, midsized and large enterprises in both the regions are very high. The Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market offer data in the concluding part that is an assessment of the significant performance of the market is indicated by various analysis tools and comprehensive research reports. In conclusion, this report clearly shows all the facts of the market without reference to other research reports or data sources. Reasons to buy this report: • Assesses 2019-2026 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market development trends with the recent trends and SWOT analysis. • Find the most up to date information available on all active and planned Litigation Funding and Expenses Market globally. • Understand regional Litigation Funding and Expenses Market supply scenario. • Assess the production processes, major issues, and solutions to mitigate the development risk. • Recognize opportunities in the market industry with the help of upcoming projects and capital expenditure outlook. • Facilitate decision making on the basis of strong historic and forecast of market capacity data. Get Complete Report: https://bit.ly/2OW9KxZ Table of Contents: Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Report 2019 to 2025 Chapter One Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Overview Chapter Two Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Data Analysis Chapter Three Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Technical Data Analysis Chapter Four Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Government Policy and News Chapter Five Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Manufacturing Process and Cost Structure Chapter Six 2013-2019 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Productions Supply Sales Demand Market Status and Forecast Chapter Seven Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Key Manufacturers Chapter Eight Up and Down Stream Industry Analysis Chapter Nine: Marketing Strategy - Litigation Funding and Expenses Market y Analysis Chapter Ten 2019-2025 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Development Trend Analysis Chapter Eleven Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market New Project Investment Feasibility Analysis ……………………………………………..Continued Contact Us: Sanjay Jain Manager - Partner Relations & International Marketing www.reportsandmarkets.com info@reportsandmarkets.com Ph: +44-020-3286-9338 (UK) Ph: +1-214-736-7666 (US) About Us: Market research is the new buzzword in the market, which helps in understanding the market potential of any product in the market. Reports And Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world. This release was published on openPR.
Commercial

BMW Takes Regency Funding to High Court Over Common Fund Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Information:

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

SOURCE: Rosen Law Firm PA

Announcements Consumer

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

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

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

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

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

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