Trending Now

All Articles

3449 Articles
Announcements Commercial

BroadRiver Welcomes Emma Dickson as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- BroadRiver Asset Management, L.P., a New York based manager of alternative assets announced today that Emma Dickson has joined the firm as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer and a key member of the firm’s management team.

“Legal excellence and outstanding compliance have been hallmarks of our firm since its inception,” said Philip Siller, Co-CEO of BroadRiver Asset Management. “Emma brings to BroadRiver years of diverse experience supervising investment funds and leading compliance teams, both in-house and at leading law firms. We look forward to working with her in building our offerings and providing exceptional service to our clients.”

Ms. Dickson was most recently Counsel to the Investment Funds Group at the Akin Gump office in London, UK. From 2014 to 2017, she was General Counsel at Criterion Capital Management, LLC, a San Francisco-based investment adviser. Prior to joining Criterion in 2014, she worked as an Attorney for Man Investments, focusing on fund launches, securities regulation issues, and general corporate counsel functions. Prior to joining Man in 2008, Ms. Dickson was an associate in the Investment Management Group at Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, where she handled a variety of legal issues related to alternative investment funds.

Ms. Dickson received a B.A. in History from Columbia University and a JD/MBA from Georgetown University Law Center & McDonough School of Business.

BroadRiver, which closed on its third longevity fund in September of 2018, seeks to provide clients with exposure to assets that have compelling risk-adjusted returns, low volatility, and negligible correlation to financial markets. BroadRiver’s highly selective approach to asset selection is underpinned by proprietary analytics and a deep commitment to research, resulting in carefully structured portfolios with strong, predictable cash flows.

Ms. Dickson’s focus will be to add her legal proficiency to the firm’s expertise in structuring and managing the firm’s new and existing funds in a range of non-correlated asset classes. The new strategies include exposure to litigation finance, global trade receivables, and other uncorrelated income assets. She will complement BroadRiver’s management team, positioning the firm to add to its $1.4 billion in assets under management.

About BroadRiver Asset Management

With assets under management of $1.4 billion, the firm focuses on alternative investment management strategies involving non-capital markets assets. It boasts one of the deepest and longest-tenured longevity-risk investment teams, having served institutional clients for almost twenty years.

For more information, please visit www.broadrivercap.com.

Commercial

$4 Billion Therium-Funded Google Class Action Sees Light of Day in UK Court of Appeal

After being tossed out by the High Court, the $4 billion Therium-funded Google class action has reached the UK Court of Appeals. The lead applicant, Richard Lloyd - a former consumer rights organization director - is claiming Google owes 4.4 million Brits hundreds of pounds each for its nefarious 'Safari Workaround' software, which was allegedly used to spy on iPhone users. As reported in The Register, the claim covers all UK citizens who used Safari's browser on their iPhone between June 2011 and February 2012. During that time, the suit alleges, Google tricked Safari into installing a cookie on its browser that allowed the Tech giant to snoop on users as they browsed the internet. This is in direct violation of the Data Protection Act  of 1998. Google has already paid extremely modest fines (less than $50MM) to US regulators over the Safari Workaround scandal. But Lloyd and Therium are attempting to bring a US-style class action (technically a representative action, since the UK does not do class actions) which aims to secure billions of pounds for millions of UK citizens. Therium will collect up to 50% of any payout, and is allegedly paying Lloyd a salary of £50k for up to four years to act as frontman for the claim. A High Court ruling last year squashed the case before it had a chance to even get going. Now, in the Court of Appeal, Lloyd and Therium are hoping to jumpstart their multibillion-pound claim.
Commercial

Domino’s Could Be on the Hook for AUD $100MM in Therium-Funded Class Action

Law firm Phi Finney McDonald and litigation funder Therium Capital Management are filing a class action which alleges that Domino's underpaid delivery drivers and in-store workers. Estimates put the total claim amount around AUD $100MM. As reported in Livewire Markets, the action is being brought on behalf of employees at Domino's franchises between June 2013 and January 2018. The suit to recapture the difference between the company's enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) and the amount workers would have been compensated has no EBA been in effect. Domino's total savings under its EBA agreement is around $200MM, and it has been roughly estimated that half of its franchisees are covered under the claim - therefore the total claim amount has a rough estimate of AUD $100MM. So far, only 1,000 workers have signed up for the class action, which means any payout would be far less than the above amount. That said, Phi Finney and Therium are actively courting more claimants. Domino's insists its EBA was still valid through January of 2018, and therefore intends to vigorously defend itself in court. The company's EBA expired in June of 2013, yet no subsequent agreement was put into place. Therefore, the company will argue that its EBA remained in effect (even though it expired). Domino's stock took a brief hit on news of the action, but has quickly recovered.
Announcements Consumer

Defrauded Investor Hires Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to Help Enforce $6 Billion Award Against a Member of Qatar’s Ruling Family

DOHA, Qatar, July 15, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The Swifthold Foundation, which was defrauded by Sheikh Fahad Bin Ahmad bin Mohamed Bin Thani and his Qatari company, Fast Trading Group, today announced that it has hired Akin Gump, the international law firm, to help advise and obtain finality through enforcement of the Qatari court's acknowledgment of the UK High Court judgment. The representation will be led by Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Senior Advisor, Member of Congress (Ret) and former Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Swifthold recently won a key decision that will allow enforcement of its UK High Court judgment in Qatar, according to Delta Capital Partners, the American litigation finance and support firm that the foundation has retained. On April 28, 2019, the Qatari Court issued a Writ of Execution allowing Swifthold to seek enforcement of the English court judgment against Sheikh Fahad Bin Ahmad bin Mohamed Bin Thani, a prominent member of the Qatari royal family, and Fast Trading Group. Ros-Lehtinen stated, "I have agreed to help obtain finality through enforcement of the Qatari court's acknowledgment of the UK High Court judgment. It is past time to right these wrongs. Qatar needs to see that this judgment is enforced in accordance with internationally accepted judicial standards and without further delay." Sheikh Fahad is a member of the Qatari royal family. He has defrauded a family foundation, now run by its founder's widow, and other global investors. The highest court in the UK, where until recently the Sheikh and his family have lived and drawn from its quality of life, has leveled a judgment of nearly $6 billion for the damages caused by his fraud. A spokesperson for Delta stated, "We are pleased to have Ms. Ros-Lehtinen on our team, given her experience advocating fair dealings in the Middle East." A spokesperson for the Swifthold Foundation commented, "We are hopeful that this expanded team, which won the judgment and now the writ of execution, will help prompt a timely resolution." The Qatari law firm that obtained the writ of execution reports that the first hearing date with the enforcement court on July 4, 2019 was successful and the Court is now proceeding with enforcement. The Court on its own motion will now contact various agencies and financial institutions to commence enforcement against the defendant's assets. A spokesperson for Delta stated, "We look forward to this key step of enforcing the judgment against the Sheikh's assets." For additional information, please visit http://sheikh-fahad-judgment.com/. SOURCE Delta Capital Partners
Commercial

UK-Based AI Firm Aims to Predict Case Outcomes for Litigation Funders

Anyone involved in litigation would love to have a crystal ball to help predict how things will pan out. If one UK-based startup is to be believed, that crystal ball may already exist. As reported in National Magazine, CourtQuant is leveraging AI software to predict case outcomes. The startup's 23-year old founder - Ludwig Bull - says his main clients are litigation funders and insurance firms, and has aims to bring global law firms aboard as well. CourtQuant claims to maintain 90% accuracy when predicting win rates for specific lawyers, the likelihood of a settlement, and even timelines for cases. The startup is based in the UK, but looking to expand to the U.S., Canada and globally. Litigation funders would be among the first to sign up for any software that can accurately predict such outcomes, given that they are investing capital into those very outcomes. CourtQuant even claims it can provide a specific estimate of how much the plaintiff is likely to win. However, AI is only as good as its data sets, and there is a concern over the quality of legal data sets, given that out-of-court settlements are not a matter of public record and therefore not included in the data. So how accurate can the software really be? Add to that the need for large amounts of data to enhance the predictive ability. Which means that in jurisdictions like Canada, with under 40 million people and both a common and civil law legal system, there might simply not be enough outcomes for AI to make an accurate prediction. Yet despite these concerns, the promise of AI is too great to ignore. As such, many funders are actively sourcing software providers to give them that all-important predictive edge. Only time will tell if startups like CourtQuant are worth the investment.
Commercial

Concern About Defendant Insolvency in Harbour-Funded New Zealand Class Action

Law firm Adina Thorn is bringing a class action - funded by Harbour Litigation Funding - on behalf of homeowners who experienced damage to their properties due to leaky cladding installed by the James Hardie multi-national conglomerate. The James Hardie parent company is based in Ireland, and attempting to exclude it and all international subsidiaries from liability, leaving the New Zealand holding company as the sole defendant. However, Thorn claims the New Zealand holding company is balance sheet insolvent, and that the parent company should therefore be on the hook. As reported in Stuff, the claim comprises thousands of properties build or re-clad with James Hardie cladding between 1983-2011. As a result, the potential payout is in the many millions of dollars. According to Thorn, the James Hardie New Zealand holding company maintains a balance sheet deficit of $5.8MM - thanks to a $13MM dividend paid to the parent company in Ireland. Thorn also claims that the company owes $43MM in debts and unpaid loans. Thorn cited the New Zealand holding company's poor financials as reason to include the parent company in the lawsuit. Although the James Hardie parent company has been moving to extract itself from liability, it has so far bee unsuccessful. Thorn is bringing a similar cladding class action against Carter Holt Harvey, which argued that Thorn's use of litigation funding - in this case, also from Harbour - was 'objectionable' and that the law firm should have sought permission from the court before bringing a funded claim. The High Court swatted down both of those arguments, however, and the funded class action has been permitted to proceed.
Commercial

Kirkland & Ellis Launches Contingency-Only Plaintiff-Side Practice

Kirkland & Ellis - the nation's largest law firm by gross revenue - has announced plans to expand its contingency-fee practice with the launch of a division that focuses on the high risk/reward fee arrangement. Kirkland has represented over 100 plaintiff-side cases on a pure contingency basis over the past decade, and now seeks to expand that number by as much as 10x. As reported in Big Law Business, the move by Kirkland comes as the firm has produced significant wins on its contingency-only business model. Just last month, the law firm secured an $82MM verdict for Bracket Holding Corp. in a pure contingency claim. Kirkland - which until now has been mostly focused on defense - is following in Quinn Emanuel's footsteps of pursuing pure contingency fee claims. The class action specialist won over $30 billion in lawsuits by suing big banks in the wake of The Great Recession. Kirkland also hasn't been shy about partnering with litigation funders. In 2015, Kirkland represented Miller UK, an equipment manufacturer suing Caterpillar Inc. in an IP claim over a piece of machinery. Miller UK leveraged litigation funding from Arena Consulting, and eventually scored a $75MM award thanks to Kirkland and Arena's participation. Of course, Kirkland's latest announcement places the firm in direct competition with litigation funders. At least on paper. Should Kirkland overstretch itself (as can happen if cases drag on longer than expected), the law firm may soon turn to litigation funders for what essentially amounts to bridge financing, or perhaps a secondaries market.
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By Linda Fitz-Alan |
In this episode, we sit down with Linda Fitz-Alan of the Abu Dabi Global Market Courts. Linda discusses the recent Litigation Funding Rules which the court has adopted, how the ADGM went about developing the rules, and how their implementation is expected to impact the broader funding climate in the region. [podcast_episode episode="4082" content="title,player,details"]
Consumer Special Features

What Does it Mean to Live Paycheck to Paycheck?

The following was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).  According to Investopedia: “Paycheck to paycheck is an expression used to describe an individual who would be unable to meet financial obligations if unemployed because his or her salary is predominantly devoted to expenses. Persons subsisting paycheck to paycheck have limited or no savings and are at greater financial risk if suddenly unemployed than individuals who have amassed a cushion of savings.” According to Forbes, 78% of workers are living paycheck to paycheck. That statistic encapsulates more than just hourly workers. Investopedia states that 25% of American families making $150,000 or more a year live paycheck to paycheck. So what happens when that paycheck gets interrupted and bills don’t get paid? Answer: consumers fall behind on their mortgage, rent, and credit card payments. As a result, credit scores suffer and the financial spiral grows more severe. A recent article published by The Center for the New Middle Class classified ‘loss of income’ as the number one reason credit scores go down. For consumers who have suffered a loss of income due to a car accident or other personal injury legal claim, a solution exists: Consumer Legal Funding. Consumer Legal Funding acts as a bridge for consumers to solve their financial dilemmas while waiting for their legal claim to make its way through the system. There are no credit checks, there are no periodic payments while the case makes its way through the legal system. Consumers only have to meet their obligation to the funding company when and if their case settles and only if there is sufficient funds to meet the commitment. Consumer Legal Funding is not a loan, as it does not have an absolute certainty of repayment. Consumers only have to meet their financial commitment to the funding company when and if they are successful in their legal claim. Therefore, the product is not a loan. It is an opportunity for consumers to sell off a portion of their legal claim (a future asset) as an investment. Like any investment, when consumers look to take advantage of Consumer Legal Funding, they should be fully aware of the cost associated, and the terms and conditions of the contract. Consumer Legal Funding is a financial transaction that is designed to fill in the gap due to the loss of one’s paycheck as a result of circumstances beyond their control. It is designed to help consumers get the fair and just settlement they deserve, and not be forced into accepting a low-ball settlement offer just because they are living paycheck to paycheck.