Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le of Siltstone Capital

All Articles

3743 Articles

The Alternative Legal Service Providers Market in US to Reach Revenues of Around $19 Billion During the Period 2020 −2025 – Market Research by Arizton

CHICAGOFeb. 6, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- According to Arizton's recent research report, Alternative Legal Service Providers Market in US - Industry Outlook and Forecast 2020-2025 is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 23% during the period 2019−2025.

Key Highlights Offered in the Report: 

  • The identity of the US legal industry is being refreshed and turbocharged in ways never seen before, with alternative legal service providers at the heart of all this action. The disaggregation of legal services is underway, not driven by players in the industry, but by clients.
  • On average, many legal businesses and in-house legal teams are pouring in significant work and time on low-value tasks across legal functions. They are struggling to utilize talent efficiently. As this realization is increasingly dawning on those working in legal departments, they are juggling the demand from the management to operate with the same speed and efficiency as the overall enterprise.
  • Organizations are increasingly implementing effective preventative and support measures, thus driving demand for litigation and investigation support.
  • There is a resistance among both corporations and law firms by not altering their models to fully engage alternative legal service providers, thereby driving inefficiencies in the market.
  • While alternative legal service providers have a lot to offer, they have a scattered approach when it comes to listening to client goals and concerns and communicating how they can help in maneuvering business challenges.
  • Quite a few law firms use the services of alternative legal service providers via partnerships and securing aid to suitably provide services in spaces of legal research, litigation, e-discovery, and document review among others, which they traditionally offered themselves.

Key Offerings:

  • Market Size & Forecast by Revenue | 2019−2025
  • Market Dynamics – Leading trends, growth drivers, restraints, and investment opportunities
  • Market Segmentation – A detailed analysis by products, services, end-user, and geography
  • Competitive Landscape – Profile of 4 key vendors and 20 other vendors

Get your sample today! https://www.arizton.com/market-reports/alternative-legal-service-providers-market-united-states

Alternative Legal Service Providers Market in US – Segmentation

  • New Law firms have been the most disruptive players in the market, accounting for major volumes of work in the document review and litigation spheres. There is a growing trend of building strong SLAs and utilization of performance metrics.
  • As several organizations predict an uptick in litigations, the market for litigation and investigation support is expected to grow. Businesses that venture into international trades are being threatened by trade wars, as a result, the environment is likely to be increasingly litigious.
  • A shift in focus from brand status and services to efficacy, thereby providing high viability on investments. The demand for document review and legal research continues to grow significantly. In an age where customer-centricity and differentiation are vital, several players are increasingly examining cost-benefit trade-offs.

Market Segmentation by Providers

  • New Law Companies
  • Captive LPOs
  • Staffing/Recruiting and Contract Lawyer Companies
  • Others

Market Segmentation by Services

  • eDiscovery
  • Investigation and Litigation Support
  • Contract Management
  • Document Review and Coding
  • Legal Research
  • Regulatory Risk and Compliance
  • Others
  • Urban

Market Segmentation by End-users 

  • Law Firms
  • Corporations

Alternative Legal Service Providers Market in US – Dynamics

Companies in the US have, for quite long, had a higher proportion of legal spending than other countries in the rest of the world. Companies in the country spend 170% more on these services when pitted against global companies with banking, real estate, and technology topping the list of spends by industry. The high spends are attributed to the fact that the US has a heavier litigious climate. Apart from that, it is characterized by widely varying laws and complexities in every state driving up volumes in terms of legal advice required. Further, the pay of legal practitioners also tends to be higher in the country with expensive billable hours, demonstrating demand. Another indicator of the growth of the legal industry is the reversal of the decline of legal employment and law school applications in 2018, post years of flat or deteriorating levels.

Key Drivers and Trends fueling Market Growth:

  • Prevalence of Dissatisfaction with Law Firms
  • Legal Departments in Overdrive
  • Focus Shifts to Delivery
  • Blurring Lines Between Traditional and Alternative

Get your sample today! https://www.arizton.com/market-reports/alternative-legal-service-providers-market-united-states

Major Vendors

  • Allen & Overy
  • Axiom
  • Elevate
  • UnitedLex

Other vendors include - BlackStone Discovery, Clifford Chance, Consilio, Driven, Epiq, Everlaw, Exigent, Greenberg Traurig, Integreon, KLDiscovery, LegalZoom, Lawyers on Demand (LoD), Mindcrest, Reed Smith, Legility, Lumen Legal, Morae Global, Orrick, QuisLex, and Thomson Reuters.

Make no mistake, Litigation Finance IS Impact Investing!

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  EXECUTIVE SUMARY
  • Litigation finance is instrumental in driving societal, environmental and governance change
  • The industry has yet to position itself as an Impact Investing asset class
  • There are few other financial industries that drive similar societal benefits through the application of finance
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • When assessing portfolios, look beyond the financial returns and focus on the social impact of the various pieces of litigation supported by the manager
  • Returns can be tangible (financial) and intangible (societal) and this is an asset class that exhibits both
  • Litigation finance should be viewed and characterized as a form of Impact Investing for purposes of investors’ portfolio allocation
From the first time I was introduced to litigation finance, be it consumer or commercial, I was quite surprised by the case studies.  What surprised me was not the outcome or the quantum of damages or the amount of profit being made by lawyers or litigation funders. Not at all.  What surprised me was the behaviour of the people involved on the defense side (typically) of these cases, and how blatant some of the actions of the defendant were as it related to the damages caused to the plaintiff (some of which I have highlighted here on the Slingshot blog).  Not being a litigator and not having experienced the dark underbelly of corporate litigation, I was somewhat surprised by the cavalier attitude that some folks had as it related to breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and similar legal issues. Yes, it was the social justice aspect of litigation finance that first appalled and then attracted me to the sector, closely followed by the return profile (I am a capitalist after all).  This article discusses the nature of litigation finance and why it is ideally suited to be considered an Impact Investing asset class. So, what is Impact Investing?  It seems like the financial industry is constantly trying to put new monikers on investment strategies to appeal to different segments of investors and to differentiate their products.  The term “Impact Investing” is the latest in a trend of investment branding that has had strong appeal with a segment of investors, including Foundations, Endowments, Pension Plans, Family Offices and High Net Worth individuals who traditionally focused their efforts on investments that drove strong absolute returns. Before Impact Investing, there was Socially Responsible Investing and Environmental Social Governance (“ESG”) Investing, Green investing, Social Investing and so on.  For the remainder of this article I will refer to Impact Investing as a catchall for these references, even though each have nuanced differences. The Global Impact Investing Network (“GIIN”), a UK based non-profit organization dedicated to Impact Investing, defines the amorphous term as “any investment into companies, organizations and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return”.  As you will see from the many examples below, the underlying investments of many funders fall squarely into the Impact Investing mandate. The Case Studies The first case that hit home for me was Joe Radcliff vs. State Farm, whereby Joe identified that the insurance company was not treating like claims equally, so he decided to let the state regulator know. This one action, which was pure in its purpose to protect consumers, set off a chain of events that ultimately led to fourteen felony counts laid against Joe’s roofing business and its eventual demise.  Well, almost.  While 385 of 400 jobs were ultimately eliminated in short order due to the actions of an overzealous insurer, Joe’s business was able to live another day thanks to the litigation finance provided by Bentham IMF. Ultimately, Joe was able to restart his business, and more importantly, the defendant (oddly, the plaintiff in this case) was forced to pay $17 million in damages and interest. At a September 2019 LF Dealmakers Forum conference, Boaz Weinstein from Lake Whillans guided the audience through an interesting case involving a software company named Business Logic that was decimated by the actions of one of its former customers who decided to copy their software in contravention of their supply contract.  Business Logic ultimately settled for a reported $60MM amount. That business now lives on as Next Capital, and employs 150 people thanks to the efforts of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel and litigation finance. Then there is the case of Miller UK vs. Caterpillar, which contains a somewhat similar fact pattern to Business Logic, whereby the actions of a former customer (contract breach and trade secret misappropriation) almost led to the demise of the business resulting in 300 of 400 employees being terminated. With litigation finance provided by Juris Capital LLC, Miller fought back and ultimately won a $75 million award.  The business has gone on to rehire many of its former employees and recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. The company has set a target of £50 million in revenue over the next five years. While these cases are poignant, one may conclude that as commercial cases, this is simply the cost of doing business (I respectfully disagree). However, to put a finer point on the social justice aspect of litigation finance, I will turn your attention to other cases which are more closely associated with Human Rights litigation. Litigation Finance as Human Rights advocate  Litigation Lending Services provided financing to a class action case commonly referred to as the “Stolen Wages” case in Queensland, Australia.  In brief, the Stolen Wages case involves the theft of wages from 10,000 First Nations Queenslanders who, from 1939 to 1972, had their wages withheld under discriminatory Protection legislation named the Queensland “Protections Act”.  Essentially, the indigenous community were forced to turn over their wages to the state, and in turn through a series of Superintendents, those monies were supposed to be paid to the indigenous community members.  Unfortunately, this never happened, and a significant sum of the monies were used to fund Queensland government initiatives.  Recognizing the severity of the issue, the Queensland government created a Stolen Wages Reparations Scheme which was designed to compensate its victims, but the class action argued the compensation was insufficient. The Class was ultimately awarded AU$190 million plus costs as further reparations. Similarly, IMF Bentham is pursuing multiple class actions involving PFAS, a man-made chemical compound that was utilized in many industrial processes and products, including fire fighting foam. In these Class Actions, local residents and business owners are seeking compensation for the financial losses they have suffered as a result of the contamination, in particular (i) reduction in property values and (ii) damage to business interests such as farming, fishing, tourism and retail amongst others. Recently there have been some more specific developments with respect to Impact Investing and litigation finance.  Burford announced its “Equity Project”, which has been “designed to close the gender gap in law by providing an economic incentive for change through a $50 million capital pool earmarked for [litigation finance matters] led by women”. There is also at least one UK-based fund, Aristata Capital, that has a specific social impact mandate which is described as “…dedicated to driving positive social and environmental change with an attractive financial return”. In the personal injury litigation finance market, almost every single case involves an individual who has suffered damages (typically physical) whereby their lives have been turned upside down and litigation finance has provided some semblance of normalcy while the plaintiff embarks on the long, arduous task of pursuing damages, typically from a large insurance company. So, should litigation finance be considered “Impact Investing”  No one likes litigation (except maybe the litigators), but litigation itself is not necessarily a bad thing.  The structural problem that most capitalist systems have, is that inevitably there are large corporations with (a) significant balance sheets and access to capital, (b) access to some of the best and brightest lawyers, and (c) time. Large corporations are also driven by shareholder returns like never before, which puts increased pressure on managers and executives to deliver shareholder value; some take that to heart by adjusting their ethical compasses accordingly.  One way to deliver shareholder value is to cut corners and hide behind balance sheets and lawyers, which is an unfortunate consequence of business in the twenty-first century.  Executives understand the power their large corporations have, and are prepared to deal with the consequences of their decisions regardless of whether those decisions are ethical. What’s more, the ultimate cost of litigation may pale in comparison to the equity value created by the decision. Accordingly, the frequency and cost of litigation has been driven upwards for decades, resulting in an unlevel playing field for large corporations. In short, the system is making the problem it created worse through compounding costs. The concept of litigation was designed to help right wrongs, and the above examples illustrate that it has been quite effective in doing so. Litigation finance helps facilitate many of these cases through the provision of capital, albeit risky capital.  Managers and investors in the asset class can hold their heads high knowing that their investment monies are going to support cases like those mentioned above, where there has been a material and blatant decision made by one entity to damage another.  I can’t think of another asset class that is more impactful than litigation finance in terms of seeking justice and ensuring the companies and individuals that have been damaged at the expense of another’s actions are compensated.  Forget the investor returns, the societal benefits are even more compelling! So, if you are an allocator within a pension plan, endowment, foundation, family office or high net worth individual, or a consultant to one of these investors, ask yourself if there is anything in your portfolios that even comes close to the positive societal impact provided by litigation finance (coupled with the financial returns).  I think you will be hard pressed to find many examples.  Investors need to change their attitude toward litigation finance, wipe away the negative patina associated with litigation, and start to appreciate how it is an asset class that is benefiting society – perhaps it has even benefitted someone you know. The Life Settlements industry (i.e. the purchase of life insurance policies from beneficiaries to assist in funding healthcare costs, or simply to monetize the value of their policy) has incurred a similar struggle as that of litigation finance, because the former is considered to be in the business of “death”.  This connotation is quite misleading, as Life Settlement providers are in the business of providing financial options to policy holders that insurance companies won’t offer (little known fact - about 80% of life insurance policies lapse, which means the insurer has very little costs to apply against the decades of premiums they receive, making the provisioning of these policies very profitable).  Similarly, the litigation finance industry is also in the business of providing options in the form of capital to injured parties to allow them to pursue their meritorious claims. If one considers the impact litigation finance has had in its first few years of existence, one can start to imagine the fundamental impact it may have on society and the way in which corporations think, act and govern themselves.  One could argue that litigation finance may even be its own worst enemy.  If litigation finance as an industry is successful, then taken to its logical conclusion, there is a scenario where litigation finance is so effective that it changes the way in which corporations make decisions, as they strive to ensure that their decisions are not adversely and illegally damaging other businesses and thereby diminishing the need for litigation finance altogether.  Call me a skeptic, but I don’t believe human behaviour, regardless of incentives, will ever change that significantly, and so I am going to continue to invest in litigation finance. The importance of being an “Impact Investing” asset class   Clearly, Impact Investing is a significant trend as the following statistics will attest.
  • According to GIIN – currently $228 Billion in impacting investing assets, double that of LY
  • According to RiA Canada – Impact Investing has had 81% growth over 2 years
  • JP Morgan - over the next 10 years Impact Investing will encompass $400 Billion to $1 Trillion in invested capital
  • Graystone (Morgan Stanley) has created the Investing with Impact Platform, and also has $5B in institutional assets in the non-profit area alone
Every single wealth management firm, including Blackrock, Morgan Stanley & UBS, to name a few, have recognized that making a difference is becoming increasingly important to the investor community.  So, for a nascent industry looking to ‘stand out from the crowd’, and given the demand for Impact Investing and the inherent societal benefits associated with its service offering, the industry is best served by ensuring litigation finance is included in the Impact Investing conversation, which would be a critical role for an industry association to assume. I encourage all members of the litigation finance community to start talking about the industry in the context of an “Impact Investing” asset class, as the industry is instrumental in making positive changes for the benefit of society, the environment and governance, as the above examples strongly illustrate. Investor Insights There is no doubt that litigation finance, whether consumer or commercial, should clearly qualify as a form of Impact Investing.  The benefits derived from the asset class extend well beyond financial returns and allocators should assess both tangible and intangible impacts of the asset class as part of their investment review. I believe that litigation finance is an important component of an investor’s Impact Investing portfolio and investors should not be dissuaded by those who argue otherwise (like the Institute for Legal Reform), the proof is in the outcomes of the cases that litigation finance supports. Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Amicus Capital Group Announces Program to Acquire Litigation Loans

Amicus Capital Group (“Amicus”), a specialty finance company headquartered in Los Angeles County, California, has announced the extension and expansion of its program to purchase loans made to contingency-based law firms, with a special interest in portfolios of troubled or under-performing assets. According to the company's LinkedIn page, the program offers lenders who have experienced problems in collecting such loans a highly effective way to recover the maximum portion of monies advanced in a timely and highly efficient manner. Amicus is a longstanding provider of financial services to America’s trial lawyers, including direct loans, factoring of legal fees, portfolio acquisitions, financial restructuring, and management consulting services. Amicus Capital Services has been a major participant in the legal finance industry since its inception in 2005 and the company’s founder, William D. Tilley, has accumulated more than twenty years of experience in the field of legal finance. The company’s loan acquisition team is comprised of seasoned veterans of the legal finance industry who have more than 45 years of combined experience providing financing to trial lawyers who represent plaintiffs in a wide range of litigation, including everything from cases based upon injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents to complex injuries, such as medical malpractice claims, and even incorporating complicated mass torts and class action litigation. Amicus combines expertise in direct loans to law firms, including advances based upon individual claims, lines of credit secured by entire portfolios of active cases, and the purchase of legal fees awaiting disbursement of funds on cases that have been settled or have otherwise reached final disposition. These loans include credit facilities secured by reimbursable costs of litigation, projected future legal fees, and/or the factoring of fees yet to be disbursed. The company’s expertise extends across the entire United States and parts of Canada. Based upon the company’s extensive experience in this industry, Amicus possesses the unique ability to analyze even the most complex loans and/or other financial mechanisms that have been made to attorneys and/or law firms and can effectively identify what lenders can hope to recover from these investments. As such, Amicus can generate the best possible offers for everything from performing loans to deeply trouble portfolios. Based upon the skillsets of the management team at Amicus Capital Group, the company is particularly effective at working with law firms to enhance efficiency and streamline operations to improve operating performance and, thereby, improving the chances of recovering money previously advanced to trouble borrowers. These combined abilities, Amicus provides stressed lenders and troubled borrowers with the highest likelihood of a favorable, efficient outcome, even in situations that initially appear unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Amicus has an impressive track record in this industry, both in terms of generating initial loans and in purchasing troubled assets. For more information, contact William D. Tilley, President, by E-mail at Bill@AmicusCapitalGroup.com, or by phone at (888) 700-1088.

SPONSORED POST: ELEV8 ANNOUNCES LITIGATION FINANCE CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN NYC

ELEV8: Litigation Finance conference unveils the latest investment opportunities and trends in the exploding litigation market that has grown by over 400% in the last 5 years. For investors, litigation finance presents a vehicle to deploy capital uncorrelated to equity or debt markets, with the opportunity to realize significant returns. The conference connects investors, law firms, plaintiff, thought leaders and regulatory agencies in order to facilitate actionable dialogue and foster a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem. In support of that mission, we sponsor an ongoing effort to share information and build confidence in deal making to accelerate the growth of litigation finance.

We’re announcing the program on February 15th, and in advance of that release we’re reaching out to key organizations that would benefit from participating in the program and supporting the growth of the industry.

Hear from authoritative speakers and experts on litigation finance. Close deals, network, and learn about this exploding industry and the current state of litigation financing opportunities over the next 12 months.

Participants include decision-makers with the following roles and titles: Private Equity Investors, Hedge Fund Investors. Corporate C-Suite Executives. General Counsel, Chief Litigation Counsel, Intellectual Property Executives, Strategic Advisors, Inventors, Analysts and Media, Technology Transfer Executives, Law Firm Litigators & Attorneys, Bankruptcy Attorneys, Arbitrators and Mediators, Insurance Executives, Litigation Finance Investors and organizations interested in understanding the rapidly growing litigation finance market.

To contact our team and learn more please click here.
Dene Coria
Executive Assistant at Elev8
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By Nick Pontt |
In this episode, we sit down with Nick Pontt, the newest addition to UK-based consumer and commercial funder, Affiniti Finance. Nick discusses the ins and outs of Affiniti's unique business model, the types of claims the funder looks to finance, what separates Affiniti from the competition, and what the future holds for the company and broader litigation funding industry. [podcast_episode episode="4946" content="title,player,details"]

DOJ Considers Requiring False Claims Act Whistleblowers to Disclose Litigation Funding

Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox of the Justice Department gave a speech on Monday to False Claims Act (FCA) attorneys, and Cox expressed concern that DOJ doesn't know the extent to which FCA attorneys are using litigation funding. Cox mentioned that Justice is considering mandating disclosure of litigation funding agreements for FCA whistleblowers. As reported in Reuters, DOJ is acting on the heels of a disclosure push in Congress (there is a Senate bill that seeks to disclose all funding in class actions and MDLs, which has been idling in committee for some time), as well as the pressure exerted by business entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Cox further noted that DOJ recently became increasingly concerned that funders are facilitating spurious litigation after Justice moved to dismiss 10 FCA claims which were backed by a litigation funding entity. Nine of the 10 claims were dismissed by the court. Disclosure of litigation funding in FCA claims could swing both ways. On the one hand, prosecutors may be more likely to seek dismissal of funded claims knowing that DOJ is critical of whistleblower/funder partnerships. On the other hand, if a litigation funder has vetted the claim and invested in it, that might give prosecutors some sense of certainty that the claim has merit. There's one more wrinkle here: in the case of  Ruckh v. Salus Rehabilitation, which is currently before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, there is a motion before the court to dismiss Ruckh’s appeal because she partnered with a litigation funder. Ruckh allegedly sold 4% of her stake in the claim to a newly-formed LLC called ARUS. Law firm Skadden is arguing that the the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. U.S. asserts that whistleblowers are not permitted to sell any stake in their claim to a third party. Rukh's attorneys have countered that nothing in the statute prohibits the sale of a minority stake in an FCA claim to a litigation funder. Should the 11th Circuit agree with Skadden's interpretation of the statute, however, that would essentially nullify all funding in FCA whistleblower claims.

GLS Capital Raises $345 Million for Litigation Finance Fund

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GLS Capital, LLC today announced the completion of fundraising of its inaugural litigation finance fund, GLS Capital Partners Fund I, LP. Together with its affiliates, the Fund has investor commitments totaling more than $345 million. The Fund’s diverse institutional investor base includes global financial institutions, endowments, foundations and family offices. GLS invests in complex situations involving commercial litigation and arbitration, as well as intellectual property disputes in both the technology and pharmaceutical industries. The firm will structure creative and flexible solutions for businesses and law firms that are looking to better manage litigation and balance-sheet risks. “We are excited to launch our first fund in a growing and dynamic asset class,” said David Spiegel, Managing Director of GLS. “Our fundraising significantly exceeded our initial target size, reflecting a high level of investor interest in our ability to be successful.” Spiegel and his co-founders, Adam Gill and Jamison Lynch, stand out as an experienced and tested team in litigation finance. They previously executed and managed more than $400 million in investments at two of the world’s largest litigation finance providers. Before entering litigation finance, they were litigators at elite international law firms. Lynch also served as the co-head of global patent litigation at a leading pharmaceutical company. The firm intends to harness the deep experience of its founders to efficiently evaluate investment opportunities and streamline the underwriting process. The founders form GLS’ investment committee and have full investment authority. About GLS Capital Formed in 2018, GLS Capital is one of the world’s largest private investment firms focused on legal and regulatory risk. We provide bespoke financial solutions to meet the unique needs of each investment opportunity. For more information, please visit: www.glscap.com

Maarten van Luyn joins Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham in Europe as Director of Collective Redress

AMSTERDAM, 23 January 2020: Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF) are delighted to announce the addition of veteran commercial lawyer, Mr Maarten van Luyn, to the company's expanding Europe team. Maarten joins as Director of Collective Redress, based in Amsterdam, where he will source, assess and manage high value strategic litigation finance solutions throughout Europe, with a focus on group claims and LegalTech solutions for group claims. Maarten's appointment follows the recent news in 2019 of IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway's merger, which created the largest dispute financing team in the world. Maarten was formerly a Partner in the Amsterdam office of leading international law firm, Baker & McKenzie, where he managed an international practice in corporate law & litigation, finance, banking & securities. He was also previously a Partner at boutique litigation firm BarentsKrans, based in The Hague. In private practice, Maarten specialised in strategic litigation involving regulated industries. He acted in commercial transactions and litigation spanning structured/corporate finance, capital markets, and financial services. His clients included local and international banks, custodians, fund managers, investment funds, insurance companies, stock exchanges, and large corporates. Maarten was also the former Director/General Counsel of Aegon Netherlands, an international financial services conglomerate. Maarten van Luyn said: "Having been a Partner in private practice as well as an in-house General Counsel of an international financial institution, it is an exciting progression for me to now join Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham, especially at this time. The combination of Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham creates one of the world's truly global financiers, leading the market for third-party dispute finance. This market is rapidly coming of age." Raymond van Hulst, Managing Director of Omni Bridgeway, said: "We are thrilled to welcome Maarten to our team. With more than 25 years of both international and local experience, Maarten brings with him a wealth of expertise, skills and a deep professional network. He also joins us at an exciting time of growth, alongside the merger of IMF Bentham with Omni Bridgeway, allowing us to provide a truly unparalleled depth of service and expertise to our global client-base." ABOUT IMF BENTHAM AND OMNI BRIDGEWAY Following the merger of the IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway operations in November 2019, the combined group is a global leader in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway offer end-to-end dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. IMF Bentham has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative litigation financing solutions and has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of litigation and dispute financing assets. IMF Bentham has a highly experienced litigation financing team overseeing its investments, delivering, as at 30 June 2019, an 89% success rate across 192 completed cases (excluding withdrawals). Visit imf.com.au to learn more. Omni Bridgeway was founded in the Netherlands in 1986 and is known as a leading financier of high-value claims and a global specialist in cross-border (sovereign) enforcement disputes. The Omni Bridgeway group includes ROLAND ProzessFinanz, a leading German litigation funder which became part of Omni Bridgeway in 2017, and a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group). The joint venture is aimed at assisting banks with the funding and managing the enforcement of non-performing loans and related disputes in the Middle East and Africa. Visit omnibridgeway.com to learn more.

Manolete Partners Releases Investor Presentation

UK-based Manolete Partners has published its latest investor presentation - a 15-minute showcase of the UK insolvency litigation market, and explanation of how litigation funding will benefit lawyers and practitioners in the space. As reported in Directors Talk Interviews, Manolete is a pure insolvency funding company based in the UK. The company is also one of only a handful of funders that are publicly-traded, being listed on London's AIM exchange. CEO and founder Steven Cooklin leads the presentation, which explains how Manolete works alongside insolvency practitioners to maximize profits for clients and mitigate risk. The presentation addresses key concepts like the total addressable market -- 2,300 insolvency claims per year in the UK, leading to £500MM of cash recoveries. Cooklin also points out how insolvency is the only area of law where a third party can purchase a claim outright, leading the funder to purchase 90% of their claim investments. This provides Manolete control, and allows them to mitigate risk, thus enabling the company to invest in the smaller end of the market, which most funders eschew. The case values of their investments range from £20K to £70MM. The company currently has 150 active cases, which account for over half of funded UK insolvency claims. Funded insolvency claims make up 7% of total insolvency claims in the UK. Manolete's goal is to grow both of those numbers, and acquire a dominant share of the £500MM UK insolvency market.