Trending Now

All Articles

3374 Articles
Announcements Commercial People Moves

Fenchurch Legal Appoints Nathan Patterson as Senior Financial Controller

By Harry Moran |

Fenchurch Legal a specialist provider of litigation funding for small and medium-sized UK law firms, today announced the appointment of Nathan Patterson as Senior Financial Controller.

Nathan brings a wealth of experience to the role, with a proven track record of effective financial management and strategic planning. He previously held key financial positions at a boutique advisory firm in Dubai and a Plc house-building company in the UK.

A qualified accountant and tax advisor, Nathan is both FCCA and CTA qualified. He will play a pivotal role in driving Fenchurch Legal’s continued growth and financial success.  In his new role, Nathan will head the Finance department, ensuring accurate financial reporting, strategic budgeting, and the overall financial health of the company. He will also oversee risk management, conducting thorough financial due diligence on all borrowers. His role is pivotal in maintaining Fenchurch Legal on a path of robust financial health and sustainable growth.

Nathan Patterson commented on his appointment: "I am excited to join Fenchurch Legal at such a key time in the company’s growth period and contribute to its continued success. My goal is to enhance the financial operations and support the company's growth ambitions through sound financial management and strategic planning."

Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal, said: "We are delighted to welcome Nathan to our team. His extensive experience will be of great value to us as we experience a period of rapid growth. He will help us continue to scale our operations and expand our client base. Nathan’s appointment underscores Fenchurch Legal’s commitment to building a strong and experienced team to support our growth plans."

Commercial Regulatory Issues

GOP Congressman Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Litigation Funding as Potential ‘Security Problem’

By John Freund |

Despite the industry's best efforts, accusations of litigation funding being a potential security threat have yet to be quashed. Just the opposite in fact, as a letter from a GOP member of Congress to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, requests the court "consider enacting transparency rules including mandatory disclosure of outside funding in federal lawsuits."

As Bloomberg Law reports, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, wrote to Justice Roberts that, “Understanding the funding terms, sources, financial details, and potential conflicts of interest are vital to ensuring informed decision-making and guarding against perceptions of undue influence."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce introduced the concept of litigation funding being a potential security threat, as part of the Chamber's push to regulate (some might say outright ban) the practice of litigation funding. Thus far, the Chamber has seen some traction from members of the Republican party. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) recently introduced a discussion draft of legislation that aims to mandate disclosure of litigation finance agreements in civil lawsuits.

In Comer's letter, he notes specific examples where he claims that 'serious questions' are raised. Those being a lawsuit against PG&E Corp., funded by Apollo Global Management and Centerbridge Partners, as well as Fortress Investment Group's $6.8 billion investments into litigation finance. Fortress is part-owned by the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund.

Chief Justice Roberts has yet to publicly comment on the issue. His top adviser, Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., has dismissed concerns over big money and foreign influence in funding agreements, stating that “As long as the funder doesn’t have control, I don’t think it’s gonna be a major issue for judges."

Announcements Commercial

Litica becomes a member of the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA)

By Harry Moran |

Litica is pleased to announce it is now a member of the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA).

Having joined as members in June, this week marked Litica's first time at the MGAA Annual Conference. It was a full day of interesting speakers and valuable networking opportunities at the exhibition. It was good to reconnect with our peers and industry leaders, explore innovative solutions, and discuss the future of MGAs.

We’re looking forward to becoming more involved in the association as well as leveraging the resources and opportunities that being a member unlocks for our business and our people.

For more information, contact Sam Dansey.

Announcements Commercial

Burford Capital Appoints KPMG LLP as Independent Auditor

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital Limited ("Burford"), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, is pleased to announce that, on July 1, 2024, the audit committee (the "Audit Committee") of Burford's board of directors (the "Board") has approved, and the Board has ratified, the appointment of KPMG LLP ("KPMG") as Burford's independent registered public accounting firm. KPMG will review Burford's consolidated financial statements for the three and nine months ending September 30, 2024 and will audit Burford's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024.

KPMG replaces Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y"), which has served as Burford's independent auditor since 2010. While Burford is not subject to traditional UK mandatory auditor rotation every ten years, Burford is nevertheless conscious of shareholder feedback about best practices in the UK market and, while it would have been disruptive to have rotated auditors during the transition to US GAAP and the addition of our New York Stock Exchange listing, with those items behind us now is an appropriate moment to abide by those best practices and move to another Big Four accounting firm.

KPMG's appointment is subject to the ratification of Burford's shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting (the "2024 EGM") to be held in due course.

Dismissal of Previous Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

On July 1, 2024, the Audit Committee has also approved, and the Board has ratified, the dismissal of E&Y as Burford's independent registered public accounting firm, effective immediately following the issuance of Burford's consolidated financial statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024.

The reports of E&Y on Burford's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles. In connection with the audits of Burford's consolidated financial statements for each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 and during the period from the end of the most recently completed fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 through July 1, 2024 (the "Interim Period"), there were no "disagreements" (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K) with E&Y on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedure which "disagreements", if not resolved to the satisfaction of E&Y, would have caused E&Y to make reference to the subject matter of the "disagreements" in connection with their report for such years. There were no "reportable events" (as described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K) during the two fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 or the Interim Period, except for certain identified material weaknesses in Burford's internal controls relating to:

  • a lack of available evidence to demonstrate the precision of management's review of certain assumptions used in the measurement of the fair value of capital provision assets as disclosed in Burford's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 28, 2024, which Burford is in the process of remediating as of the date of this announcement; and
  • the determination of Burford's approach to measure the fair value of capital provision assets in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement, as disclosed in Burford's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2022 filed with the SEC on May 16, 2023, which was remediated at December 31, 2023.

The Audit Committee discussed the "reportable events" with E&Y, and Burford has authorized E&Y to respond fully to the inquiries of KPMG, as successor auditor, concerning the subject matter of such "reportable events".

Pursuant to Item 304(a)(3) of Regulation S-K, Burford provided E&Y with a copy of the disclosures in this announcement prior to furnishing this announcement under the cover of Form 6-K to the SEC, and E&Y has furnished a letter addressed to the SEC stating that E&Y agrees with the statements set forth in this paragraph and the two immediately preceding paragraphs above. A copy of E&Y's letter, dated July 9, 2024, has been furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to the Form 6-K.

Appointment of New Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

On and effective as of July 1, 2024, KPMG was appointed as Burford's independent registered public accounting firm for the three and nine months ending September 30, 2024 and for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024. The Audit Committee approved, and the Board ratified, the appointment of KPMG, subject to the shareholder approval at the 2024 EGM. 

During Burford's two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 and the Interim Period, neither Burford nor anyone acting on its behalf has consulted KPMG regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on Burford's consolidated financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided to Burford that KPMG concluded was an important factor considered by Burford in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a "disagreement" (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K) or a "reportable event" (as described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Dubai, Sydney and Hong Kong.For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

Announcements Commercial People Moves

Allia Group Appoints Seasoned Legal Strategist Justin Fitzdam as General Counsel

By Harry Moran |

Allia Group, the innovative legal finance firm exclusively specializing in healthcare insurer disputes, is excited to announce that Justin Fitzdam has been appointed as General Counsel. Mr. Fitzdam is based in Allia Group’s Nashville office.

Fitzdam has extensive in-house healthcare litigation expertise. In his 11 year tenure at HCA Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest hospital systems and healthcare service providers, he spearheaded the development of their nationwide litigation program against managed care payors. In addition, he oversaw all litigation, regulatory enforcement and compliance, investigations, and related legal issues for a substantial portfolio of HCA’s facilities and affiliates. His strong track record of successful litigation against the largest health insurance companies resulted in several of HCA’s largest judgments.

Over the course of his career, Fitzdam brings nearly 20 years of litigation, mediation, and arbitration experience across a broad range of large, complex, and highly regulated industries.He began his career in private practice at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and then Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP where he represented clients on both the plaintiff and defendant sides in all federal and state court levels, including the United States Supreme Court.

Fitzdam holds a J.D. from Cornell Law School and a B.S. in Accounting from the University of Florida.

In his new role, Fitzdam will be responsible for leading and implementing litigation strategy for Allia Group’s portfolio of litigation and will serve as the head legal advisor to the CEO and senior management. In addition, he will also define new areas of growth and oversee the underwriting of legal risks related to new business and transactions.

“We are thrilled to welcome Justin to the team,” said Eliot Listman, CEO of Allia Group. “His expertise with payor litigation in both in network and out of network cases will be indispensable. He is an ideal fit as our strategy grows to include solutions for even the largest hospital systems and physician groups in the battle against big health insurance. We are fortunate to have Justin on the team in our mission to hold payors accountable for bad behavior.”

About Allia Group:

Allia Group specializes in litigation finance solutions to improve the financial position of healthcare providers. To demand responsibility from healthcare insurers, Allia litigates and arbitrates against these payors and structures the purchase of underpaid claims and legal rights to monetize these assets, benefitting providers’ cash flow. Allia has the experience to address the needs of hospital systems, physician groups, and emergency transportation businesses. Visit www.allia.group to learn more.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Lawyers for Civil Justice Submits Letter to House Subcommittee in Support of Funding Disclosure Rules 

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported last month, a committee hearing in the US House of Representatives brought a renewed focus on the issue of disclosure and transparency in the use of third-party litigation funding. Since that hearing, the debate has continued to evolve, with advocacy groups lending their voices to the discussion, as funders and law firms try to influence the direction the legislature will take.

In a letter submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) responded to the Subcommittee’s hearing on third-party litigation finance. The letter, signed by LCJ’s president, Molly H. Craig, laid out its argument that “there are numerous compelling reasons why uniform rules requiring disclosure will benefit federal courts and parties while improving the transparency and fairness of the federal court system.”

LCJ listed the following reasons why it supported the introduction of new rules governing the disclosure of litigation funding:

  • Reduce the risk of conflicts of interest
  • Ensure that decision makers participate in court proceedings
  • Identify the actual interests of parties
  • Evaluate discovery requests and allocate costs and sanctions in accordance with the FRCP
  • Protect the interests of class action members
  • Ensure counsel represent their client’s interests, not third-party funders
  • Inform trial rulings on evidence admissibility and acceptable lines of questioning

LCJ also highlighted four proposals that it has previously put forward and continues to advocate for, which would introduce specific amendments to existing rules in order to “support or require such appropriate TPLF disclosures”. These include amendments to Rule 26 disclosure, Rule 16 disclosure, Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Disclosure, and FRCP Rule 7.1 disclosure.LCJ describes itself as “a national coalition of corporations, law firms, and defense trial-lawyer organizations that promotes excellence and fairness in the civil justice system and supports measures to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of civil cases.”

More information about LCJ can be found on its website.

Community Spotlights

Member Spotlight: Stuart Price

By John Freund |

Stuart Price is the Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director and co-founder of CASL. Mr Price worked in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia during his 30+ year career in banking and investment banking, legal and litigation finance. Mr Price has held senior positions in litigation finance for over a decade with a career highlight being the resolution of a class action against the Queensland State Government for ‘Stolen Wages’ for $190m, on behalf of over 12,000 First Nations peoples.  

Mr Price was instrumental in the establishment of The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA), where he was the inaugural CEO and Managing Director from 2018. Mr Price continues as a Director of ALFA.

Mr Price has a 1st Class Honours Degree in Applied Mathematics from the University of St. Andrews, is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia & New Zealand, a Fellow of the Governance Institute of Australia and a Fellow of FINSIA.

Company Name and Description: CASL was founded in 2020 by John Walker and Stuart Price with the objective of creating a level playing field and providing access to the legal system for claimants to prosecute meritorious claims.

CASL is a significant litigation funder in the Australian market, raising investment capital of $156m in 2022 that represents one of the largest dedicated pools of capital to this market.

Company Website: https://www.casl.com.au/

Year Founded:  2020

Headquarters: Sydney

Area of Focus: Litigation Finance

Member Quote: CASL has one of the most experienced litigation finance teams which when combined with substantial financial resources, enables it to be a leading provider of litigation finance with local decision making.

Case Developments Commercial

Latam Advisors Director says Argentina’s President Should Negotiate a Deal for $16B YPF Judgement

By Harry Moran |

One of last year’s biggest stories of the legal funding world was the $16 billion judgement in the Argentina YPF case, standing out as a significant win for litigation funder Burford Capital. However, the pressing question since this judgement has been how Argentina’s government would deal with this mammoth sum, especially since Burford Capital has continued to demonstrate its commitment to judgement enforcement and foreign asset recovery.

An article in the Buenos Aires Times, which analyses the current state of Argentinian President Javier Milei’s government, offers a small but interesting insight into the direction that Argentina’s leader could choose to take in regards to the $16 billion judgement in the YPF case. The article highlights recent comments from Sebastián Maril, director of Latam Advisors, who suggested that the Argentine government could attempt to negotiate a deal to end the dispute with Burford Capital over the $16 billion sum, with payments made over time in return for a lower total amount paid.

Maril argues that “Argentina should start viewing international legal proceedings as assets and not liabilities”, and that the government should seek to build relationships with these companies so that “beneficiaries of foreign judgments should understand that, by helping the Republic they’ll be helping themselves.” Maril places the YPF judgement in the context of a wider pattern of Argentina already having to pay out ‘US$16.35 billion in closed and settled legal judgements since 2000’, with an additional $10.245 billion in open judgements beyond the YPF settlement.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Paper Published on the Funder’s Perspective of International Arbitration

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Francesca Mastragostino, junior associate at Bonn, Steichen and Partners, announced the publication of a paper titled ‘Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration: the Funder’s perspective’, which covers “the complex dynamics between the client and the funder during legal proceedings.” The paper, published by Club de l’arbitrage as part of Les Dossiers Du Blog De L’Arbitrage, includes an examination of the funding of these proceedings, including disclosure requirements for funders, rights and obligations, and security for costs.

In the paper, Mastragostino discusses the differences in disclosure rules between jurisdictions, highlighting the compulsory requirements in Hong Kong and Singapore versus the lack of any mandatory disclosure in Luxembourg. Mastragostino notes that despite the continuing conflict between advocates and critiques of the legal funding industry, “there might be indeed potential benefits to such transparency”, such as the possibility for this transparency to enhance the image of a claim as meritorious enough to have attracted funding.

Mastragostino also examines the nature of the relationship between a client and their funder, explaining that a positive model for this relationship is “characterised by continuing monitoring and dialogue.” She also highlights the value, beyond pure financial resources, that a funder can bring to these proceedings through the expertise and experience that litigation finance professionals can bring having worked on similar cases in the past.

The full paper can be found on the Club de l’arbitrage website.