Trending Now

All Articles

3449 Articles

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces 50″ HDTV Promotion for Month of July

NEWARK, N.J.June 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding announced that they have recently broken their own record for presettlement funding last month. The premier lawsuit settlement funding company credits the increase in sales to their quick turnarounds, their effective marketing, and their talented team of underwriters who are able to offer the best customer service in the industry. Legal-Bay provides presettlement funding for almost any type of lawsuit, including motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, personal injury, wrongful conviction, death, or termination, sexual harassment/abuse or discrimination in workplace, and any civil cases where the plaintiff has already retained an attorney. Legal-Bay has been a proven leader in funding a wide variety of lawsuits due to their over 15 years of expertise. If you have an active lawsuit and need legal funding, Legal-Bay may be able to assist you immediately. To apply online, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call the company's toll free hotline at 877.571.0405.    Chris Janish, CEO, commented, "With the launch of our new TV commercial, and our record month in funding, we want to reward one of our lucky new clients in July with a new 50-inch HDTV. Our customer service team prides themselves on delivering to our clients, and this is another way to show our appreciation to clients that provide us with the opportunity to fund them in their time of need." View it here: LEGAL-BAY TV COMMERCIAL In order for a chance to win the free TV, you must fund between July 1 and July 31.  Any and all clients that fund for a minimum of $2K for the month will be eligible for a random drawing the first week of August. Legal-Bay's non-recourse programs are not a lawsuit funding loan, lawsuit loans, presettlement loan, presettlement loans, pre-settlement loan, or pre-settlement loans as many clients may think. Pre-settlement funding is merely an immediate cash allowance given in advance of a plaintiff's impending monetary award. The cash advance is risk-free, as the money does not need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. To apply right now, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by. SOURCE Legal-Bay LLC

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

One of LCM’s key areas of focus since its IPO has been the origination and execution of corporate portfolio transactions. The recent announcement of a portfolio funding partnership with a major aviation company, in which LCM will finance 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the company for an initial 5-year rolling period, underscores the funder’s commitment to its corporate portfolio funding strategy. The transaction was led by Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies, who leads LCM’s EMEA team, comprised of some of the most experienced practitioners in the industry at corporate portfolio funding. Thanks to Rowles-Davies’ leadership and the team’s expertise, this is the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM in past 12 months, and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm announced in March. The first of LCM’s portfolio transactions was announced in October 2018, and was in the building and construction sector. LCM remains one of only a handful of funders to have completed such a transaction type. The funder also currently has eight other portfolio deals in the pipeline. Perhaps no better evidence could be proffered of litigation funding’s growing awareness and understanding amongst corporate clients – at least within certain capital-intensive industries. As Rowles-Davies puts it: “Everyone has heard of ‘litigation finance,’ but they don’t necessarily understand what it entails. To many, it still means bringing big claims against corporates and they don’t appreciate that it is a form of financing that can support a company by monetizing its legal assets, removing the risk of litigation, increasing EBITDA and keeping costs off the balance sheet. Some sectors are certainly more aware of the benefits available through the use of litigation funding and these are typically businesses in sectors that are high-volume, low-margin; for example, aviation, construction and outsourcing." By financing multiple claims at once, funders like LCM reduce their risk profile, which results in a more attractive pricing structure for the client than when cases are funded on a one-off basis (one-off cases carry binary risk, therefore the cost of capital is higher). On this latest transaction, LCM has maintained the optionality to extend the number of cases it will finance, as well as the cumulative size of the financing available. “When we are structuring corporate portfolios for our clients, we look to be as flexible as possible and try to directly address the problem that they are looking to solve by providing a bespoke solution,” Rowles-Davies adds. “This provides businesses with complete optionality as to how they fund their disputes, moving to a position of using funding out of choice, rather than necessity. This is totally different from a single case situation where often a distressed and impecunious party is being funded.” London-based law firm Clyde & Co. helped arrange the funding partnership between LCM and the unnamed airline. This type of arrangement underscores the win-win nature of a partnership between a dedicated funder and an individual law firm. According to Rowles-Davies, this type of partnership “is not that common, but I suspect we will see more arrangements like it as funding becomes more widely used.” Rowles-Davies is quick to point out, however, that LCM has relationships with multiple law firms, and that agreements such as its partnership with Clyde & Co. don’t guarantee exclusivity. “This is about picking your partners carefully – we want to work with people who understand how LCM operates and what we’re looking for, and it takes time to develop that understanding.”

IMF Bentham launches new US$500 million Fund in response to increased worldwide demand for dispute resolution finance

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA 20 JUNE 2019: IMF Bentham (ASX:IMF) (operating in the US and Canada as Bentham IMF) announces the launch of a new US$500 million fund (‘Fund 5’) to underwrite non-US disputes around the world.

Fund 5 is IMF’s second non-US Fund and is being launched only twenty months after the launch of the first non-US Funds (‘Funds 2 & 3’) and only five months since Funds 2 & 3 were upsized in January 2019. Fund 5 also closely follows the launch in November 2018 of IMF’s second US Fund (‘Fund 4’). IMF is increasing its fund capacity in direct response to the exponential growth in demand for dispute resolution finance around the world and IMF now has close to A$2 billion in combined funds under management globally. IMF Managing Director and CEO, Andrew Saker says: “IMF is experiencing strong market demand for funding across all jurisdictions. Since 2015 IMF has recorded an 85% increase in the number of non-US funding applications and a 149% increase in US funding applications. Demand for dispute resolution finance is growing as a result of increased awareness, the increasing costs of arbitration and litigation and regulatory changes in some jurisdictions which now allow parties to seek dispute resolution finance. Demand is particularly strong in Asia and Canada where dispute resolution finance is still relatively new but it is becoming a mainstream global financial product.” How will the capital be invested? Fund 5 will invest in disputes outside the US, including Australia, Asia, Canada and the EMEA region, providing finance for law firms, companies, groups and individuals, across a broad range of dispute types including insolvencies, group actions, international arbitration and commercial litigation. Who are the investors in Fund 5? Fund 5’s initial size is US$500 million and investors have the option to roll into a successor fund on the same terms, to increase the overall new capital commitments to US$1 billion.  IMF committed US$100 million in cash to Fund 5 and remaining funds were contributed by external investors, reflecting the strong investor confidence in IMF’s business. IMF is increasingly a fund manager and investment adviser whose investors include endowment funds, foundations, investment professionals and family offices. The principal external investors in Fund 5 are:

•     Funds managed by, and investors represented by, Partners Capital Investment Group, LLP (Partners Capital). Partners Capital (www.partners-cap.com) is a leading outsourced investment office based in London, Boston, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore which manages over US$24 billion on behalf of endowments, foundations, investment professionals and family offices.  Partners Capital’s Phoenix II Fund is also an investor in IMF’s Fund 2 and Fund 4.

•     Funds managed by Harvard Management Company (Harvard), Amitell Capital and Balmoral Wood. Harvard is a US based manager of institutional investment funds and funds managed by Harvard are also invested in IMF’s Fund 4. Amitell Capital is a Singapore based private investment firm, which is also an investor in IMF’s Fund 3 and Fund 4. Balmoral Wood is a Canadian fund-of funds investor specialising in dispute resolution finance.

How is Fund 5 structured? Fund 5 is an exempted limited partnership incorporated under the laws of Cayman Islands formed for the purpose of making investments in non-US dispute resolution finance investments via wholly owned subsidiary entities. IMF Bentham Cayman Advisory Services (IMF Advisory), a newly established wholly owned subsidiary of IMF, is the appointed investment advisor of Fund 5. Further details are available here About IMF Bentham Ltd IMF is one of the leading global dispute resolution funders, headquartered in Australia and with offices in the US and Canada (where it operates as Bentham IMF), Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK. IMF 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 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.  For further information regarding IMF and its activities, please visit www.imf.com.au.

RD Legal Files Opening Brief in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal

Consumer legal funder RD Legal has filed its opening brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. The funder is appealing Judge Loretta Preska's June 2018 order to void its funding agreements with ex-NFL players and members of the September 11th Victim's Compensation Fund, on the basis that the funding agreements were in effect assignments, and therefore void under the anti-assignment clause of the NFL settlement agreement, and the federal Anti-Assignment Act. As reported in National Law Review, Judge Preska subsequently found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cannot bring its case against RD Legal because its structure of being led by a single director who is only removable for cause by the President of the United States is unconstitutional. Judge Preska dismissed the CFPB from the case, and several weeks later followed that up with a dismissal of the New York Attorney General (NYAG) from the case. RD Legal is now appealing Judge Preska's ruling that its transactions violate the anit-assignment clauses. Recently, the 9th Circuit upheld the CFPB's constitutionality, and the 5th Circuit is hearing oral arguments in another case involving the organization's constitutionality. RD Legal is asking the 2nd Circuit to uphold Judge Preska's decision that the CFPB's structure is unconstitutional.

Litigation Funding for the Restaurant Industry

Recently, Conagra Brands and Kraft Heinz sued Tyson Foods and other chicken suppliers for allegedly conspiring to inflate prices. That comes on the back of a large antitrust claim agains the pork industry, alleging price collusion since 2009. All of this has a major impact not just on the food processing and packaging industries, but on the restaurant industry as well - given that a full 1/3 of all restaurant costs are related to food inputs. With slim margins and a true David v. Goliath dynamic, the restaurant industry is ripe for litigation funding. As reported in Modern Restaurant Magazine, the restaurant industry is one where tight margins abound. Any excess costs must be passed onto the consumer, which then impacts sales and revenue. So when large food manufacturers allegedly conspire to inflate prices, restaurants feel the heat more than anybody. Since many restaurants don't have the capital to pursue legal claims, it can be difficult to assert their rights. Additionally, many restaurants want to continue ongoing relationships with their suppliers, hence they are loathe to sue - especially when they don't necessarily have the capital to back up a long, arduous legal claim. With access-to-justice such an issue in the restaurant industry, it makes sense for litigation funders to fill the gap. Any industry with limited (or non-existent) legal budgets can benefit from litigation funding, and the restaurant industry is in exactly that position. Asserting one's rights against suppliers and vendor is a tough call for any business, especially one as precariously positioned as a restaurant. Partnering with funders empowers these businesses by providing them the leverage they need to take on multi-billion dollar corporations who allegedly conspired to increase their costs.

What Sorts of Questions Are Institutional Investors Asking About Litigation Funding?

Institutional investors continue to pour money into the litigation finance sector. The prospect of attractive returns, uncorrelated to broader equity/bond markets, which may actually increase post-recession given the influx of legal claims likely to arise explains why institutional capital is flowing steadily into the space. But what concerns do institutional investors have about litigation funding, and what questions are they asking? As reported in Above the Law, a panel at IMN's recent litigation funding conference covered exactly this topic. Namely, the key concerns that arise when institutional investors approach the space. Firstly, there is the issue of competition. Most funders currently offer healthy, double-digit IRR. Yet, one question many institutional investors have, is can those returns remain steady as more competition enters the space? Drew Kelly of Delta Capital Partners noted that he has been in the space for several years, and hasn't seen a measurable difference in competition for claims, suggesting that demand is keeping up with - or perhaps even outpacing - supply. Additionally, as Lee Drucker of Lake Whillans pointed out, the litigation funding market remains highly inefficient - as do all nascent industries - which means there is plenty of opportunity for funders to differentiate remain competitive. There is also the issue of conflict of interest. The panel mentioned a recent example where an educational endowment decided not to invest in a funder because they were concerned they might end up funding a lawsuit against the school. The panel agreed this concern is legitimate, yet many institutions are coming to terms with it and deciding to invest anyway, given the attractive returns available. Brian Roth of EJF Capital commented that as the industry grows more mainstream, those institutions that do have such disqualifying concerns will eschew funding altogether, meaning funders should encounter less and less of these issues going forward.

Term Sheet Exclusivity & MAC Clauses: Good or Bad Things for the Funding Industry?

At last week's 2nd Annual Financing, Structuring and Investing in Litigation Finance conference, hosted by IMN in New York City, the third panel of the day discussed the topic of term sheet exclusivity. Namely, should funders mandate an exclusivity period whereby the claimant cannot approach or discuss potential funding, while the initial funder performs due diligence on the case? The panel was moderated by Andrew Langhoff of Red Bridges Advisors, and comprised of Caline Mouawad (King & Spalding), Douglas Gruener (Levenfeld Pearlstein), Ross Wallin (Curiam Capital), Boris Ziser (Schulte Roth & Zabel) and Joshua Metlzer (Woodsford Litigation Funding). Langhoff began by explaining that he understands the obvious reason behind including an exclusivity period. That said, he sees two "insidious consequences" with its inclusion. The first is what he termed "the damaged goods problem." Essentially, there is no certainty that the deal gets done during the exclusivity period, and any claimant who shoots down a funder's advances during that time may have to come crawling back, at which point they might already be labelled 'damaged goods.' The second issue plays off the damaged goods concept. Since funders are well aware that claimants can't exactly go crawling back to funders whom they shot down, the funder with the exclusivity can afford to play hardball. Some will drag out the exclusivity period and offer more onerous terms than what was agreed upon initially (citing material changes to the claim. which may or may not be legitimately 'material' -- more on that below). Joshua Meltzer of Woodsford was the first to respond, saying he agreed with Langhoff's contention that there are problems inherent in an exclusivity period. He has personally seen scenarios where a funder has used its leverage during an exclusivity period to offer "radically different" term sheets than what was agreed upon. Bors Ziser of Schulte Roth & Zabel responded by pointing out that "that cuts both ways." Plaintiffs can always come back to the funder and claim that something wasn't in the term sheet, and then walk away. The funder is the one who spent time, money and energy diligencing the case during the exclusivity period. Ziser also mentioned how claimants can use their term sheet to extract better terms from other funders whom they engage with. That might violate the NDA agreement, but so what? When has an NDA ever been enforced..?  (It is perhaps ironic that Meltzer, the litigation funder, agreed with Langhoff that funders often exploit the exclusivity period, while Ziser, the attorney, pointed out how claimants can be the ones who exploit the situation). It was here that Langhoff highlighted the break fee which many funders are enacting, in lieu of an exclusivity period. The break fee enables claimants to discuss terms with other funders, however once the term sheet is signed, claimant will owe the funder a certain amount if the deal isn't done for any reason. A break fee ensures that funders are at least compensated for their time and effort diligencing the claim. Yet there are issues of collectability around a break fee. How will funders enforce that? One idea that was mentioned was that funders may collect the break fee upfront, and simply return the amount along with the funding once the deal is done. Of course, claimants and law firms won't exactly like hearing that they have to pay an upfront break fee, and that might subordinate a funder in the queue, assuming there are a handful of funders who are itching to do the deal. The question was never resolved, and it's likely that many funders are currently grappling with this very issue. At this point, the conversation bled into a discussion on whether funders can indeed pull funding based on a material change in the case. Boris Ziser pointed out that often times term sheets are intentionally ambiguous - stating that funders can pull funding if there is a 'material adverse change' in a case, also known as a MAC Clause. But what constitutes a material adverse change? Ross Wallin of Curiam noted that enforcement of MAC Clauses is often a last resort on the part of funders, who prefer to bring all parties together and hash out any differences, especially given that there is repetitional risk at play here. "If you have a reputation of firing that bullet too aggressively, you re going to find yourself starved of opportunities," Wallin explained. In other words, funders with a reputation for pulling funding based on vague terminology might find themselves on the outs the next time a potential claim comes down the pike. The world of funding - while growing - is still quite small, and everyone seems to know each other well enough that  reputational risk is considered a major potential hazard. So while issues like exclusivity periods and MAC clauses may seem like good ideas - and in fact be very practical, as well as standard operating procedure in financial transactions - the reality of reputational risk which funders face often precludes either their enforcement, or their very inclusion in the term sheets in the first place. One thing for funders to keep an eye on is industry commoditization. Should the industry commoditize further (as some predict), that implies that claimants and law firms will hold more of the cards during a potential transaction. Funders who offer onerous terms like exclusivity and MAC clauses may be unknowingly hurting their chances, as they compete with a growing pool of competitors.

Litigation Capital Management (AIM:LIT) announces funding of corporate portfolio transaction

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT) (LCM), a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, announces it has signed an agreement to fund a corporate portfolio transaction with a leading global aviation business.

The global aviation business portfolio transaction will:

  • fund 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the corporate;
  • be for an initial five-year rolling period with optionality to extend the number of cases and the size of finance available; and
  • be the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement announced by the Company on 25 March 2019.

LCM remains one of very few litigation funders globally to have executed corporate portfolio transactions and the only one in the industry actively originating and executing these types of transactions. This type of investment remains an area of focus and growth for the Company. The current pipeline includes a further eight corporate portfolio transactions. The Company intends to make further announcements in the future as and when further agreements are signed.

Commenting on the new corporate portfolio transaction, Patrick Moloney, Chief Executive Officer of LCM, said:

 “We are delighted to be announcing our second corporate portfolio transaction and the first originating from our global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm. This clearly demonstrates the positive and mutually beneficial nature of the agreement and our ability to generate business through our network of trusted partners.

LCM possesses one of the most experienced teams at originating and executing global corporate portfolio transactions and we will continue to focus on providing litigation financing solutions to corporate clients. This is a key growth area for LCM and a point of differentiation for us, especially given the highly skilled and experienced team we have in London, led by Nick Rowles-Davies.”

Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of LCM, said:

“This global funding deal for an aviation business demonstrates our ability to convert corporate portfolio transactions and is exactly the strategy we outlined at the time of our listing in London in December 2018. Aviation is one of many sectors that will benefit from corporate portfolio funding, the continued awareness of legal financing solutions and how legal financing can minimise risk for corporates across sectors. Our pipeline includes eight further corporate portfolio projects across various sectors and we continue to refine our knowledge and experience while contributing to LCM’s future growth. 

We have refined and developed a strategy to originate business through targeted partnerships. This corporate portfolio transaction is a positive endorsement of how we conduct our business generation and the relationship we have developed under the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm.”

About LCM

Litigation Capital Management (“LCM”) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-case and portfolios across class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection, active project management and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM has been listed on AIM since December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT. www.lcmfinance.com

Why is There an Assault on the Poorest Amongst Us?

This article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). “Millions of Americans Are Just 1 Paycheck Away From ‘Financial Disaster’” was the title in a recent story in Barron’s. The article stated that 51% of working adults in the US would need to access savings to cover necessities if they missed more than one paycheck. That is the equivalent of over 78.2 million Americans. The story went on to state that “roughly two-thirds of households earning less than $30,000 annually and Hispanic households would not be able to cover basic living expenses.” That is the equivalent of over 101.2 million Americans. Consumer Legal Funding is a vital resource for those very Americans. Funding allows the 101.2 million Americans who cannot cover basic living expenses to bridge that gap while their legal claims make their way through the system. With some cases taking several months – if not years – to settle, these Americans need help today. Consumer Legal Funding allows them to pay their mortgages, put food on their tables and keep a roof over their heads while the Insurance industry slow-walks their legal claims. Perhaps the most chilling revelation here is that the Insurance industry, led by the US Chamber of Commerce, supported legislation to eliminate Consumer Legal Funding in two of the top-10 poorest states in the country: first in Arkansas, where 15.4% of the population lives in poverty, and just last week in West Virginia, where the poverty rate is 17.7%. What is even more striking, is that those are two of the top-10 hungriest states in the US. In West Virginia, 14.9% of the population goes hungry, and in Arkansas the rate is 17.4%. The elimination of Consumer Legal Funding in these two states was implemented merely to increase Insurance industry profits, and force consumers to accept lowball offers (as an aside: State Farm ended 2018 with a net worth of over $100 Billion). Thanks to the latest legislation that went into effect on June 5, 2019 in West Virginia, residents who need Consumer Legal Funding assistance will no longer be able to access it. Take for example, Patressa from Barboursville, WV, who said: “I am completely broke financially due to a car accident. I have medical needs and doctor appointments that I need to go to.” Now Patressa is among the 1.8 million residents of West Virginia who no longer have access to alternative funds while their cases are pending in the legal system. As a result, Patressa will be forced to accept an offer for less than what she deserves. One of the most heartbreaking responses to the recent legislation comes from Victoria of Clarksburg, WV, who stated quite candidly that she “needed the money so I could have a place to live.” Who can the 4.8 million Patressa’s and Victoria’s of West Virginia and Arkansas turn to for help? How will they meet their medical needs? How will they find a place to live? Eric Schuller President Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)