Trending Now

All Articles

3449 Articles
The LFJ Podcast

Episode 83: Mani Walia

Hosted By Mani Walia |
In this episode, we sat down with Mani Walia, Manager Partner and General Counsel of Siltstone Capital. Mani discussed the 3rd annual LitFinCon conference, taking place in Houston, Texas on March 6th and 7th, 2024. Mani explains what we can expect at the conference, some of the creative agenda decisions, the networking potential, and how Siltstone Capital operates as a litigation funder in the broader market. [podcast_episode episode="12486" content="title,player,details"]
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

White & Case Advises on Burford’s Upsized $275 Million Senior Notes Offering

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised a syndicate of leading financial institutions on an upsized offering by Burford Capital Global Finance LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Burford Capital Limited, of US$275 million aggregate principal amount of tack-on 9.250% senior notes due 2031. White & Case previously advised a syndicate of leading financial institutions on Burford Capital Global Finance's initial issuance of US$400 million aggregate principal amount of such senior notes due 2031 in June 2023. Burford intends to use the proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes. The closing of the offering is expected to occur on January 30, 2024, subject to customary closing conditions. Burford 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). The White & Case team was led by partner Jonathan Michels, associates Elizabeth Mapelli, Joanna Heinz and Jacob Manzoor, and law clerk Heidi Ahmed (all in New York).
Commercial Regulatory Issues

An Overview of Dispute Funding Regulations in Hong Kong

Whilst regulations that govern litigation funding in the industry’s major jurisdictions are continually evolving, the established rules for countries such as Australia, the UK and US are well understood. For those funders looking to expand their footprint to other territories, such as Asia, it is important that newcomers to these markets understand the boundaries in which they can operate. An article in Financier Worldwide gives a detailed overview of the current state of third-party dispute funding in Hong Kong, with the insights provided by Brian Gilchrist, Elaine Chen, and Alex Wong from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The authors begin by establishing the overriding principle that Hong Kong is still a jurisdiction that broadly prohibits the use of third-party funding, apart from three categories of disputes where its use is permitted. As the article explains, two of these categories are more simply defined. The first is described as ‘common interest’ cases, “where a third party has a legitimate interest in the outcome of someone else’s lawsuit, and is therefore justified in supporting it.” This is illustrated by the example of a vehicle rental company funding claims who had suffered accidents whilst driving the rented vehicles. The second category includes cases ‘where access to justice will be obstructed if a claimant is prevented from obtaining third-party funding’, such as situations where a plaintiff “has rightful title to property” but lacks the financial means to pursue the claim. Moving to the broader final category of cases where outside funding is permitted, the article’s authors outline the types of cases where third-party funding has been recognised as permissible either by the courts or through specific regulations. This includes funding for insolvency litigation and arbitration cases, with the latter group of disputes governed by the outcome-related fee structures arrangements (ORFSA) rules introduced in 2022. The full article then provides a detailed requirement of the types of fee arrangements permitted under ORFSA, as well as the requirements that funders must adhere to. As the experts from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher summarise, whilst third-party funding for court litigation in Hong Kong is “generally unavailable, save in exceptional circumstances”, the rules for arbitration proceedings are much more receptive and allow for “various funding solutions.”
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Florida’s Senate Judiciary Committee Offers Unanimous Support for Increased Regulation of Litigation Funding

A trend in the US litigation finance industry over the past year has been the introduction and passage of bills in state legislatures designed to curtail the use of third-party funding through the imposition of more stringent rules governing its use. The beginning of 2024 indicates that this trend is not slowing down, as a bill that lays down a swathe of new rules for litigation funding has received unanimous support at the committee stage in the Florida State Senate.  An article in Insurance Journal covers the unanimous vote by Florida’s Senate Judiciary Committee to endorse and move forward with SB 1276: the ‘Litigation Investment Safeguards and Transparency Act’. The bill, which was sponsored by Sen. Jay Collins, looks to increase disclosure requirements for third-party litigation funding and codify limits on the level of control that funders can exert on a lawsuit. The current draft text of the bill requires: claimants and lawyers to disclose any financing agreements, funders to indemnify their clients against adverse costs, and allows courts to take funding arrangements into consideration when assessing any potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, it lays out prohibitions on funders: taking control of decision-making during lawsuits, receiving a larger share of any award than the claimants, paying commissions or referral fees to other parties, assigning or securitizing any part of the funding agreement. The bill’s progress through the Florida Senate received praise from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. Critiquing the extent of the bill’s rules on the use of third-party funding, Rebecca Timmons from the Florida Justice Association, emphasized that Floridians “can’t go toe to toe when the other side has millions to spend on lawyers,” without the use of litigation financing.
Case Developments Commercial

Tets Ishikawa: Post Office Scandal Should Trigger Debate Over Recoverability of Costs and Exemplary Damages

Attention drawn to the UK Post Office scandal over recent weeks has brought conversation around the importance of litigation funding to the foreground, with funders highlighting it as yet another example of third-party funding promoting access to justice. In a recent op-ed, Lionfish’s Tets Ishikawa not only highlights the crucial role that funding played in the case, but uses it to argue for a wider re-examination of the issues of recoverability and exemplary damages. In an opinion piece for The Law Society Gazette, Tets Ishikawa, managing director of LionFish, looks at the Post Office scandal both as an example of the value of litigation funding, and as an important reminder that the issue of recoverability is overdue for further debate and potential reform. As Ishikawa puts it, the central issue that the litigation highlighted was not ‘the cost of litigation’, it was actually ‘that the cost of funding is a tax that impecunious claimants have to pay to access justice.’  He expands on this idea by suggesting that the courts should be given ‘discretion to allow for the recoverability of success fees, ATE premiums and litigation funding costs.’ Ishikawa notes that ‘recoverability is not a flatly rejected notion,’ highlighting the cases of Essar Oilfields Services v Norscot Rig Management and Tenke Fungurume Mining SA v Katanga Contracting Services SAS, where the High Court ‘refused to deem the award of funder costs as erroneous.’  Beyond the financial burden, Ishikawa also argues that the Post Office demonstrates that ‘there is not enough deterrence to stop these kinds of injustices happening in the first place.’ Looking at other historical precedents, Ishikawa raises the Law Commission’s 1997 report on Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages, in which the future Supreme Court Justice Lady Arden of Heswall supported the idea of allowing courts ‘to award exemplary damages to discourage corporate wrongdoing.’
Commercial Regulatory Issues

UK Lawyers Call for Broader Scope in Government’s Commitment to Reverse PACCAR

As LFJ recently reported, the British government has continued to offer encouraging statements that suggest it will take legislative actions to reduce or even negate the impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. However, as a new article highlights, senior figures across the UK’s legal industry are cautioning that however encouraging these proclamations might be, the effectiveness of these measures must be assessed by their details. Reporting by City A.M. provides insight into the attitudes of legal professionals in the wake of the Justice Secretary’s announcement that the government would move quickly to offer a legislative fix to “the damaging effects” of PACCAR. The article first highlights positive reactions to the statement, such as Luke Tucker Harrison, partner at Keidan Harrison, who praised the Justice Secretary’s comments and said that it “ensures litigation financing can continue to be offered in a flexible manner maximising its commercial availability to parties.” Daniel Gore, senior associate at Withers, also offered praise for the government’s statement of intent, but noted that “there might be questions over the true motivation of the government to act now, and potentially in conflict with the general constitutional idea of a separation of powers.” Speaking to the narrow focus of the government’s current efforts in their amendment to the DMCC bill, Andrew Leitch, partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, said that the if the government truly wanted to protect the use of funding in cases similar to the Post Office litigation, “then such an across-the-board reversal may be necessary.” Martyn Day, co-president of The Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA), noted that whilst the government’s commitment was “very welcome”, the current version of the DMCC amendment would have a limited impact, and “there is no reason why the amendment should apply simply to competition claims.”
Commercial

Ramco Shares Report on Litigation Financing in Spain

Among the individual country jurisdictions within Europe, Spain has been identified by many law firms and funders as a market with a strong potential for adoption of litigation finance services. A new survey published by Ramco Litigation Funding provides further evidence to support this idea, with Spanish legal professionals overwhelmingly reporting a ‘keen interest’ in litigation finance services. An article in Iberian Lawyer provides key takeaways from the inaugural Ramco – Esade Forum, which was held last week as part of the ongoing partnership between Ramco Litigation Funding and the Esade Law School in Madrid. The event saw the unveiling of the first edition of ‘Informe Sobre La Financiación De Litigios En España’, a report focused on litigation funding in Spain, which surveyed Spanish legal professionals about their attitudes towards the practice. The survey found an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards litigation funding in the country, with 90% of respondents expressing ‘a keen interest in understanding Litigation Financing solutions.’ Furthermore, 75% of those surveyed said that they saw litigation funding as ‘a viable alternative, considering it a key tool for risk management in the current economic landscape.’ In the most encouraging sign for litigation funders in Spain, 90% of respondents who had already accessed litigation finance services reported ‘high satisfaction levels’ and expressed ‘a willingness to repeat the experience.’  The report was produced in conjunction with LOIS (Legal Operations Institute Studies), and involved the surveying of 106 legal professionals through 30 separate questions, and eight in-depth interviews with experts. The full report (in Spanish) can be accessed through Ramco’s website.
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

POLARIC PARTNERS Launches as a Litigation Funder in Germany

POLARIC PARTNERS GmbH is opening its doors under the management of longstanding litigation funding specialist Markus Glaser. The company provides litigation financing in return for a success-based share of the litigation proceeds. Litigation funding has established itself in the market for legal disputes as part of risk management. Companies, consumer groups, lawyers and insolvency administrators in particular make use of this opportunity to mitigate their own cost risks and those of their clients. Court costs, lawyers' fees and expensive expert opinions are a burden in any legal dispute, even at the planning stage. Litigation funders cover these costs from the outset, making it easier for their clients to plan upcoming disputes in a way that conserves liquidity. Clients only pay the funder if they are successful - from the proceeds they recover from the defendant. POLARIC PARTNERS GmbH presents itself with a network of funding and service experts and offers its clients tailor-made solutions for entrepreneurially sensible legal disputes. Its partner-focused approach sets it apart from many other offers on the market. Litigation is just as much a part of its repertoire as cases that clients prefer to keep out of court. In suitable cases, the company offers to take over claims in full so that the customer does not have to take legal action themselves. "The market for litigation funding has been dynamic for years and still has a lot of potential for development from the customer's point of view," Glaser is convinced: "Over 90% of all funding requests are unsuccessful. We want to support customers with their individual funding requirements in a more tailored way - as a strategic partner, in long-term business relationships, for our mutual benefit". About POLARIC PARTNERS:  POLARIC PARTNERS GmbH is a litigation funder for companies, consumers, lawyers and insolvency administrators. As a specialized service provider for legal disputes, it assumes the costs of court proceedings, from the advance on court costs and statutory and contractual lawyers' fees to expert witness fees - and if the customer is unsuccessful in the legal dispute, also the opponent's costs. In addition to the exemption from costs, even advances on the principal claim are possible as monetization. POLARIC PARTNERS has a network of partners in Germany and abroad that enables it to handle legal disputes worldwide, regardless of the amount of the claim. At the heart of every case is a partnershipbased understanding of cooperation and intensive individual support for the client.
Community Spotlights
" />

Member Spotlight: Marc Grossman

Marc D. Grossman is a highly accomplished attorney and businessman with an impressive track record of success. Over the course of his career, he has consistently demonstrated his exceptional legal skills and business acumen, earning him billions of dollars across various ventures. With decades of experience under his belt, Mr. Grossman stands out as a true leader in his field. His legal career began after graduating from the University of Michigan in 1989. He then went on to further his education by completing the prestigious JD/MBA program at both Brooklyn Law School and Baruch Business School. During this time, he also interned at the Law Department of the United Nations, gaining valuable experience in international law. Since then, Mr. Grossman has made a name for himself as a Partner and Founding Partner at multiple law firms including Sanders Phillips Grossman LLC, Sanders Aronova Grossman Woycik Viener & Kalant PLLC, Sanders Grossman Aronova PLLC, Aronova & Associates PLLC, and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. Throughout his career, he has been involved in high-profile product liability cases and has represented large groups of plaintiffs against major corporate defendants. His expertise extends beyond the legal world as he also serves as a member of the Board of Directors for Shay Capital and Esquire Bank. Additionally, he is a Broadway producer and proud owner of a professional basketball team. With such diverse interests and achievements, it's clear that Mr. Grossman is not only a talented attorney but also a well-rounded individual. In summary, Marc D. Grossman is an accomplished attorney and businessman who continues to make an impact in various industries through his hard work, dedication, and impressive skillset. His passion for justice and pursuit of excellence have solidified his reputation as one of the most successful professionals in his field. Company Name and Description:    Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLC Company Website: milberg.com Year Founded:  1965 Headquarters:  1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907 Area of Focus:  Mass Torts Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Defective Products, Environmental & Toxic Torts Litigation Member Quote: "Victims' rights are human rights. We must never forget that behind every corporate injustice, there are real people who have been hurt and deserve access to justice."