Nancy Saltzman, former Executive Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer and General Counsel to NY-based operations management and analytics firm EXL Group, discussed the value of litigation finance to corporations, and how the instrument is influencing corporate legal spend. Saltzman sat down with Above the Law to discuss some key issues relating to litigation finance. According to Saltzman, one of the core information gaps between law firms and corporate legal departments is that law firm simply don't understand the cost pressures that corporations are under. She finds law firms too theoretical, and claims that approach ends up costing corporations time and money. Saltzman laments that while winning is the goal to a law firm, it isn't everything to a corporation - keeping costs down is of paramount concern. When asked if legal departments should be viewed as cost or revenue centers, Saltzman argues that corporates should never view their legal departments as revenue centers. That said, when the opportunity to generate presents itself, corporates should proactively seize it - and use all tools at their disposal to do so. "It’s about improving the time to revenue for what you’re producing," Saltzman says. Saltzman isn't the first in-house counsel to balk at the notion of transforming the legal department from a cost center into a profit center. However, the fact that she is willing to proactively seize opportunities to generate revenue speaks volumes about the slow penetration of litigation finance into the corporate legal world.

Global litigation finance and international arbitration are inextricably linked - with the former being legalized for use in the latter in both Singapore and Hong Kong (many believe as a test case for eventual broader expansion). With that in mind, it's worth considering what lies ahead for the international arbitration sector. Read on to find out-- According to Lexology, there are some major issues to pay attention to with regard to international arbitration in 2019. First and foremost on the list is Brexit. While there's no telling when it comes to politics, Brexit is indeed expected to take place this year. London-based Clyde and Co. sees Brexit having a negligible, or potentially even positive effect on the state of international arbitration in London long-term. That said, in the short term, parties may turn to New York to eschew any bureaucratic nightmares that may arise from the Brexit wind-up. Anti-globalization is another trend worth watching out for. Nationalistic political shifts may prompt increased arbitration between investors and states. And with traditional investor-state dispute mechanisms like the ICSID losing a bit of steam internationally (thanks in part to the EUs proposed Multilateral Investment Court), there is much to watch out for on this front. Litigation funders have also ramped up their participation in investor-state disputes, as LFJ recently reported. No mention of global arbitration trends in 2019 would be complete without some discussion of Belt and Road (BRI). BRI is arguably the largest single investment ever made (Noah's Arc? The Pyramids?) Given the sheer size and scale of the BRI project, it stands to reason that dispute resolution centers in the region are going to be kept busy for some time. Throw into the mix the fact that Chinese culture encourages mediation and settlement as opposed to litigation, and arbitrators (and funders) have a lot to get excited about. And finally, it's worth putting London Disputes Week on your 2019 calendar. The event will be held from May 7-10, and will showcase prominent lawyers, judges, arbitrators, academics in the field of dispute resolution. You can bet all of the above will be discussed, as well as any international arbitration topics that happen to be trending during the event.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was established under President Obama to enforce consumer protections and regulate lenders and investment entities who may cause harm to both customers and society at large. But 2018 may have been a turning point for the organization, which experienced not one but two new directors, a brief and odd flirtation with a name change, and a challenge to its very constitutionality by Consumer Legal Funder, RD Legal. As reported in Manatt, 2018 was not necessarily a great year for the CFPB. Acting director Mick Mulvaney took over the organization in late 2017 after Obama appointee Richard Cordray stepped down from his post. Mulvaney had long-criticized the broad overreach enacted by Cordray's CFPB, and his first major act as director was to place all enforcement actions on hold while they underwent an internal review. Mulvaney also requested zero dollars from the Trump Administration for the bureau's activities budget. Certainly no one can question Mulvaney's commitment to scaling back operations! One of Mulvaney's odder moments as acting director was his flirtation with a name change, from CFPB to BCFP (say that five times fast). BCFP stands for Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which of course is very different from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The name change was ultimately scrapped, but many accused Mulvaney of creating an unnecessary distraction for the organization, in order to avoid doing any real regulating (which he is clearly opposed to). The most notable incident involving the CFPB in 2018 - at least as far as LFJ is concerned - came amidst the CPFBs joint claim with the New York Attorney General's Office (NYAG) against Consumer Legal Funder, RD Legal. The CFPB and NYAG accused RD Legal of defrauding 9/11 victims and ex-NFL players by using predatory lending tactics. For its part, RD Legal counters that its financing should be classified as an investment, not a loan (this is an ongoing debate in the Consumer Legal Funding world). However, quite interestingly, RD Legal filed a motion for dismissal based on the argument that the CFPB is by nature unconstitutional, given that the agency is led by a single director with the power to be fired by the President of the United States. That creates an inherent conflict, according to RD's motion. Federal Judge Loretta Preska agreed, echoing an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel (one of those judges was the soon-to-be-elected Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh). Judge Preska dropped the CFPB from the suit, and eventually did the same with the NYAG. The CFPB is currently appealing Judge Preska's decision. So it goes without saying that a lot hangs in the balance in terms of the CFPBs very constitutionality, and its ability to bring cases against alleged offenders. Eventually, Kathy Kraninger was appointed as Mulvanye's successor to the CFPB. That sets up some expectations for the year ahead. While Kraninger did work under Mulvaney at the Office of Management and Budget, she isn't expected to be as steadfast in her opposition to the organization she now runs. That said, she's not expected to be anywhere near the aggressive attack dog that former director Cordray has been characterized as (by both his supporters and detractors). It is expected that  Kraninger will carve out a middle path between the two. That is assuming, of course, that the very constitutionality of the CFPB is upheld, and the organization continues to function. However, it's also worth noting that with the Democrats taking over the House of Representatives, Rep. Maxine Waters is the odds-on-favorite to lead the House Financial Services Committee. With a presidential election looming in 2020, expect some back-and-forth (to put it lightly) between Rep. Waters and director Kraninger. To sum it all up, 2018 was a year of fireworks for the CFPB. Don't expect as much headline entertainment in 2019, but a few big bangs wouldn't surprise us.