Trending Now

All Articles

3490 Articles
Community Spotlights
" />

Member Spotlight: Robert Martorana

Robert Martorana is a NYS licensed attorney who has 10 years of experience in the litigation finance industry.  Rob worked for Burford Capital and Stifel prior to launching REMO Litigation Finance in January of 2023. While at both companies he worked on single case and portfolio deals ranging in value from $5m to $200m.  Having been on the funder side for many years learning their underwriting criteria and process, he is uniquely positioned to represent clients seeking funding. Company Name and Description:   REMO Litigation Finance provides advisory services for law firms and companies seeking funding. REMO provides concierge level service throughout the process, from objective setting to negotiating deal terms. Company Website: www.RemoLitFin.com Year Founded:  2023 Headquarters:  Haddonfield, NJ Area of Focus:  REMO provides advisory services to a broad range of clientele, from mass tort lawyers obtaining portfolio funding, to AmLaw 100 firms seeking funding for complex commercial litigation.  We make the process of obtaining funding transparent, and we do that through frequent and clear communication with our clients. Member Quote: Anyone who thinks that litigation funding creates frivolous litigation has never tried to get funding.
Case Developments Commercial

Panthera Resources Announces Issue of Notice of Dispute with India

Litigation funders often highlight the mining industry as a sector that can benefit greatly from the use of third-party dispute financing, with conflicts over project rights and investment treaty obligations being a regular occurrence. Another example of such a use case has reappeared in the new year, with Panthera Resources announcing a step forward in their funded dispute with India.   An announcement from Panthera Resources reveals that the company’s subsidiary, Indo Gold Pty Ltd (IGPL) has issued a formal Notice of Dispute (NoD) to the Republic of India over the company’s legal rights to the Bhukia Project. The dispute focuses on allegations that the Indian government breached its obligations ‘under the 1999 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India on the Promotion and Protection of Investments.’ IGPL is seeking damages from India, stating that the company ‘is entitled to fair and equitable compensation, not merely reimbursement of expenditures.’ The announcement explains that now the NoD has been delivered, if there is no ‘meaningful correspondence’ or ‘amicable settlement’ with India, then IGPL will pursue arbitration proceedings against the government. The company expects any notice of arbitration to be delivered within the first quarter of 2024, after which ‘an arbitral tribunal is to be constituted within two months of delivery.’ As LFJ previously reported in August 2023, Panthera Resources has already secured litigation funding through LCM Funding, a subsidiary of Litigation Capital Management. The funding agreement provides for up to $13.6 million in finance to support the dispute through to a conclusion.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Former CAT Chair says Government’s PACCAR Solution is ‘Far Too Narrow’

The UK government’s efforts to provide a legislative solution to the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR, namely through an amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (DMCC), continue to receive criticism from senior figures in the legal industry. The latest of these critiques comes from the former chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), who argues that the government must go further to protect the UK’s ‘reputation as a global legal centre.’ In a recent opinion piece on The Law Society Gazette, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Alex Carlile KC argues that the government’s current plans to offer a legislative fix to the PACCAR ruling ‘will not solve the problem.’ He explains that ‘the role of litigation funding is now under serious threat’ in the current environment, and that without sufficient government action, the Supreme Court’s judgement will ‘give deep-pocketed defendants fresh means of challenging claims to avoid their liabilities, making cases more costly to bring and less viable for third-party funders to back.’ Lord Carlile states that the central issue with the proposed amendment is that ‘it is far too narrow.’ He goes on to explain that it is too limited in scope to stop challenges from defendants over the enforceability of funding agreements in the CAT, and it fails to offer a solution for the majority of funded cases, which take place outside the CAT. Lord Carlile goes on to suggest that the government should further amend the DMCC bill, ‘to bring it in line with its initial policy intent to allow funding and to reflect the long-held position of the courts and government.’
Commercial Legal Innovation

Navigating Patent Litigation: The Crucial Role of Generative AI Platforms

In a landmark decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC), Apple's highest-grossing wearables faced unprecedented importation restrictions, marking a pivotal moment in the protracted patent dispute with medical device-maker Masimo. To put the magnitude into perspective, Apple's wearables, home, and accessory business raked in a staggering $8.28 billion in revenue in the third quarter of 2023. This ruling disrupts the very core of Apple's most popular and revenue-generating wearables, adding a seismic impact to the already intense legal battle with Masimo. This article delves into the transformative capabilities of Generative AI platforms, shedding light on how these technologies are reshaping both proactive and reactive litigation practices against the backdrop of such a significant industry development. Elevating Efficiency in Patent Litigation: A Generative AI Perspective Strategic Edge for Law Firms and Litigators:
  1. Streamlined Data Management:
    • Generative AI platforms streamline the upload and organization of voluminous case documents, enhancing law firms' and litigators' capability to manage data efficiently.
  2. Automated Analysis:
    • Leveraging Generative AI, legal professionals can automate analysis processes, extracting valuable insights from complex datasets swiftly and accurately.
  3. Dynamic Adaptability:
    • Future-ready Generative AI platforms empower law firms and litigators to dynamically adapt to new information or shifting circumstances, providing a real-time strategic advantage.
  4. Investor Collaboration:
    • Building and maintaining a comprehensive roster of investors becomes more manageable, facilitating efficient collaboration and attracting funding partners for legal fees.
  5. Tailored Content Creation:
    • Generative AI platforms excel in generating tailored content for legal motions, analyzing writing styles and logic to ensure persuasive arguments that resonate effectively.
  6. Communication Excellence:
    • Acting as central communication hubs, these platforms foster seamless collaboration and information exchange among legal professionals, enhancing overall communication efficiency.
Empowering Patent Owners in Proactive Management:
  1. Organized Patent Portfolio:
    • Generative AI facilitates the creation of well-organized rosters of patents, providing patent owners with strategic control over their portfolios.
  2. Capital Attraction:
    • Patent owners can leverage organized patent portfolios to attract funding for growth and innovation independently, reducing reliance on traditional fundraising approaches.
  3. Self-Funded Litigation:
    • Generative AI platforms empower patent owners to gain better economic control, enabling them to self-fund litigation cases when required.
  4. Global Coverage:
    • Future-ready platforms offer a comprehensive overview of patents, covering multiple regions and facilitating global enforcement.
  5. Quality Assurance:
    • While maintaining human-in-the-loop functionality, Generative AI ensures robust quality checks and efficient data management.
Masimo vs. Apple: A Glimpse into the Future of Patent Litigation The recent ITC ruling in Masimo vs. Apple serves as a poignant reminder to businesses about the critical importance of being in the driver's seat when it comes to managing their own patents and capitalizing on innovation. While Masimo, a sizable player in the industry, successfully navigated the legal terrain to secure favorable outcomes, it prompts reflection on how smaller companies might face more significant challenges in achieving similar results. This underscores the significance of businesses taking control of their intellectual property and innovation strategies. For smaller companies, such as those without the resources of a Masimo, being in the driver's seat is not just a strategic choice but a necessity. The Masimo vs. Apple case illuminates the power dynamic in patent disputes and the role that control over one's intellectual property plays in shaping the outcomes. Smaller entities, with limited resources, may find themselves at a disadvantage in legal battles, making it imperative for them to proactively manage their patents, navigate legal landscapes, and capitalize on their innovations. Generative AI platforms emerge as a leveling force in this scenario. By harnessing the power of generative solutions, smaller law firms gain a more competitive edge without the need for extensive headcount. This democratization of legal capabilities levels the playing field, allowing smaller firms to stand shoulder to shoulder with their larger counterparts. The transformative potential of generative AI platforms extends beyond just litigation; it opens up avenues for smaller entities to actively participate in the competitive capital market. In essence, a more equitable competitive capital market is crucial for fostering innovation. Generative AI platforms become the key to sustaining this trend. They empower businesses, regardless of size, to actively shape their legal strategies, manage patents efficiently, and capitalize on their innovative potential. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, embracing generative AI not only ensures a fairer competitive environment but also fosters a culture of innovation where businesses of all sizes can thrive.  As the patent community adapts to the demands of complex patent disputes, Generative AI platforms emerge as indispensable tools, revolutionizing both proactive and reactive litigation practices. This nuanced approach empowers law firms, litigators, and patent owners alike, offering a glimpse into the future of patent litigation where efficiency, data-driven strategies, and collaboration take center stage amidst the landmark shifts brought on by significant industry developments. About the author: Joshua Masia, Co-founder & CEO of DealBridge.ai, brings a wealth of experience from leadership roles at JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock, and iCapital. With a BS in Electrical Engineering, Josh has spent 15 years shaping technical and business solutions. At DealBridge.ai, Josh leads the charge in transforming private markets. Their platform, powered by Generative AI, automates deal complexities, streamlining origination, due diligence, and distribution. Eliminating traditional processes, DealBridge.ai empowers seamless connections, enhancing the human experience in deal-making. Under Josh's vision, DealBridge.ai maximizes revenue potential through automation, redefining legal, insurance, and financial transactions. As a trailblazer, Josh and DealBridge.ai usher in a transformative era in deal relationship management.
Case Developments Commercial

Argentine President Suggests Creation of Perpetual Bond to Pay for $16 Billion YPF Award

The $16 billion award handed down in the YPF lawsuit stands out as one of the key moments in litigation finance for 2023, with Burford Capital looking to achieve a massive return on its investment. However, in the months since the judgement was announced in September, there has been much speculation over Argentina’s ability to pay the full multi-billion sum if its appeal fails. Reporting by Bloomberg suggests that the Argentine government is exploring options for payments of the award, with recently elected President Javier Milei suggesting that the government could issue a perpetual bond without a fixed maturity to cover the costs. In a televised interview on La Nacion, Milei explained that the government could charge Argentines what he called the “Kicillof tax,” referring to Buenos Aires Governor Axel Kicillof who led the plan to nationalize YPF in 2012. During the interview, President Milei explained the government’s current predicament, stating: “we don’t have the money, we don’t have $16 billion, that’s the reality — but we have the willingness to pay.” He went on to describe the idea of using the new tax to “pay this fund with a perpetual bond,” with the ‘fund’ in question referring to Burford Capital. Burford Capital did not respond to Bloomberg’s request for comment in the wake of President Milei’s interview.
Announcements Commercial Deals

Montauk Metals Obtains Litigation Funding Against the Republic of Colombia

Montauk Metals Inc. (TSX-V: MTK) (the “Company” or “Montauk”) is pleased to announce that it is been advanced US$200,000 (the “Loan Amount”) pursuant to the loan and option agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Canada Investments Ltd. (“Omni”), as previously announced in its news release on November 9, 2023. The Loan Amount was advanced to the Company in connection with the execution of promissory note by Montauk in favour of Omni (the “Note”). Montauk brought arbitration proceedings (the “Arbitration”) against the Republic of Colombia (“Colombia”) to enforce the Company’s rights to compensation under the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (the “FTA”), as previously described in its news releases of March 27, 2018, February 25, 2019, February 10, 2020, November 23, 2021, September 1, 2023, October 5, 2023 and November 9, 2023 and subject to certain conditions and approvals as noted below. Montauk contends that Colombia breached its obligations owed to the Company, including specific obligations under the FTA. The claims include Colombia’s refusal or failure to compensate the Company for the losses with respect to the Company’s Reina de Oro project incurred as a consequence of Colombia’s prohibition of mining in the páramos (high altitude eco-systems). On March 21, 2018, Montauk filed a Request for Arbitration against the Republic of Colombia before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). The Arbitration is being conducted in two phases. Phase One will determine whether the ICSID Tribunal adjudicating Montauk’s claims (the “Tribunal”) under the FTA has jurisdiction over this case and whether Colombia has breached its obligations under the FTA and is liable for compensation to the Company. Assuming that ICSID decides in favour of Montauk in Phase 1 (the “Phase 1 Decision”), Phase 2 of the arbitration (“Phase 2”) will involve determining the quantum of damages awarded to Montauk to compensate it for losses incurred. The Company must make a payment of US$200,000 to ICSID (the “ICSID Payment”) before a ruling on Phase 1 is rendered. The Company has advanced the Loan Amount to ICSID to satisfy the ICSID Payment and expects for this to result in the issuance of a decision on jurisdiction and liability. The ICSID payment was originally required to be paid on or before November 9, 2023 (the “Payment Deadline”), however the Company advised ICSID that the Agreements (as defined below) were subject to the approval of shareholders at a meeting of shareholders to be held on December 14, 2023 (the “Meeting”), and accordingly ICSID indicated that they would extend the Payment Deadline until after the shareholders vote to approve the Agreements at the Meeting. Shareholders of the Company approved the Agreements at the Meeting. Litigation Funding The Loan Agreement grants Omni the option, exercisable in the sole discretion of Omni (the “Phase 2 Election”) to provide litigation funding to the Company pursuant to an arbitration funding agreement (the “AFA”, and together with the Loan Agreement, the “Agreements”). The Company, Omni and Lenczner Slaght LLP entered into the AFA, which, should Omni exercise the Phase 2 Election, provides Montauk an initial funding amount of up to US$2,325,000 (the “Non-Recourse Funding Amount”) subject to certain conditions. The Non-Recourse Funding Amount will be used to fund Phase 2 and may be increased in certain circumstances as may be agreed upon between the Corporation and Omni. If Omni elects to provide the Non-Recourse Funding Amount for Phase 2 and the enforcement of any award obtained by the Company in the Arbitration, the Loan Amount and interest shall be repaid through proceeds recovered in the Arbitration (and in the event there are no proceeds recovered in the Arbitration, such amount inclusive of such interest shall be payable by the Company at the conclusion of the Arbitration). Please see the Company’s press release issued on November 9, 2023 and management information circular dated November 9, 2023 for further information on the Agreements. Omni’s return on the Non-Recourse Funding Amount (the “Omni Return”) will be limited solely to recovery from the amount of money for which the Arbitration is settled, or for which a final, non-appealable award is given in favour of the Corporation (the “Litigation Proceeds”). The Omni Return shall be an amount calculated as the sum of (i) a multiple of the amounts actually incurred of the Non-Recourse Litigation Funding Amount and (ii) a percentage of the gross recovery proceeds, both calculated when the recovery proceeds are received, as set out in the table below:
MonthsMultiplePercentage
0-122.0x12%
12-243.0x14%
24+3.5x16%
For any resolution that occurs on or after thirty-six (36) months from the date Omni makes a positive Phase 2 Election, Omni’s Return shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, accruing and compounding on a monthly basis. The Litigation Proceeds, if received, will be disbursed in the following order of priority: (a) Omni shall be reimbursed the Recourse Loan and the amounts actually incurred of the Non-Recourse Funding Amount; (b) Omni shall be paid the Omni Return and legal counsel shall be paid their legal fees; and (c) the balance shall be paid to the Corporation. In connection with the Loan Agreement, Note and LFA, the Company has agreed to grant Omni a continuing first priority security interest over any and all assets of the Company (whether presently held or acquired after the date hereof), including the Company’s interest in any Litigation Proceeds. The Company cannot guarantee that it will be successful at the Arbitration, or that the estimated amounts disclosed herein will not be revised as the Arbitration proceeds. The Company also cannot guarantee that it will be able to recover all or part of its legal and arbitration costs from Colombia even if it is successful at the Arbitration. Management of the Company will continue to provide updates on material developments of the status of the Arbitration. Private Placement Withdrawal Due to securing the foregoing funding, the Company will not be proceeding with the proposed private placement that was previously announced by the Company on October 5, 2023. RISK DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: At the present time, the Company’s payment obligations are substantially in excess of its cash balances and it has no other assets. The Company is not solvent and cannot continue as a going concern. Trading in shares of the Company and any investment in the Company is highly speculative. No trading in securities of the Company or investment should be made without being able to lose the entire amount of such funds. See below, “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”. Investors are advised to seek professional advice before making any decision to trade in or invest in the securities of the Company.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Lists Five Biggest Developments in Litigation Finance for 2023

As we head into the final days of 2023, industry leaders and analysts continue to offer their takeaways from the previous year, putting the spotlight on the most important cases, regulatory developments, and market trends. In an article on Bloomberg Law, Emily R. Siegel takes a look back at the last 12 months in litigation finance and highlights five of the most important market events and trends that occurred in 2023. First up is the headline-grabbing dispute between Burford Capital and its former client, Sysco Corp. The conflict came into public view in March after the wholesale food distributor sued Burford over claims that the funder had interfered with its efforts to settle cases, whilst the funder argued that Sysco had broken the terms of the original funding agreement. The dispute was resolved in June after Sysco agreed to assign the claims to Burford affiliate, Carina Ventures LLC, yet the public fight reignited debates over the level of control that funders can exert over proceedings. Siegel’s second highlight also involves Burford Capital, with the landmark $16 billion award in the Argentina YPF case. Whilst a temporary suspension of enforcement has been granted by a New York judge, if Burford are successful in their enforcement and collection efforts, then the funder could be in line to receive up to $6.2 billion from the award. The third big development on the list is the appearance of new legislative measures being taken at the state level to enforce tighter disclosure requirements on litigation funding arrangements. As Siegel notes, these policy proposals have achieved varying levels of success, with Montana’s governor signing a bill governing disclosure whilst Louisiana’s governor vetoed a similar piece of legislation. Moving from the US to the UK, Siegel unsurprisingly places the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision among the year’s biggest developments. Whilst industry leaders and analysts had mixed perspectives on the impact of the judgement at the time, we have seen encouraging signs that a variety of solutions are evolving, whether that is in the form of legislative amendments or the modification of existing funding agreements. Finally, Siegel highlights the ongoing campaign by Judge Colm F. Connolly in Delaware to shed light on the presence of third-party funding in patent litigation matters. This November saw Connolly make his biggest move yet, when he announced his intention to refer multiple lawyers for ethics inquiries, due to their alleged violation of professional conduct rules in cases involving patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC.
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

Omni Bridgeway Announces First Close of Funds 4 and 5 Series II Capital Raising

Omni Bridgeway Limited (Omni Bridgeway) (ASX:OBL) is pleased to announce the first close (First Close) of capital raising for the second series of its core funds, Fund 4 and Fund 5 (Series II), with existing investors on improved cost coverage terms achieved through transaction fees (Transaction Fees). Each Series II fund is capped at US$500 million, and Omni Bridgeway will continue to be a 20% co-investor. Existing investors1 in Fund 4 and Fund 5, being funds managed by Harvard Management Company, Partners Capital Investment Group LLP and Amitell Capital (Existing Investors), have all exercised their capacity rights which were a key term of the first series, granting the Existing Investors the right to reinvest in Series II on the same terms. The continued reinvestment by the Existing Investors of the first and second generation funds underscores the confidence of leading institutional and legal finance investors in our track record, investment origination and underwriting process. We anticipate additional closings in 2024 for Series II, involving potential further commitments from clients of Existing Investors (Advised Accounts), which were a significant part of Series I, along with new investors. Highlights of the Series II capital raising
  • First Close: US$485million from Existing Investors2 inclusive of OBL’s co-funding3, provides a strong base to market the remaining US$515 million capacity of Series II. 
  • Upcoming second close: Aimed at existing and new Advised Accounts. This is expected to complete in the third quarter of FY24.
  • Further closings and timeline: We anticipate further closings over the next 12 months to build up to the capped size of US$500 million for each Series II fund. This further capital raising will be aimed at broadening our private capital investor base.
  • Fee terms / cost coverage: Series II has been structured to improve the cost coverage received by Omni Bridgeway as manager through the inclusion of Transaction Fees. Transaction Fees, comparable to facility fees in traditional lending, are targeted to average around 2.5% to 3.0% of investment commitments and will typically be payable to Omni Bridgeway in the first years of an investment’s life cycle. The Transaction Fees represent a significant improvement on the fee terms of the first series, in line with our stated objective to increase cost coverage contribution from future funds. The market leading performance fee terms (an 8% hurdle return to the investors followed by a full catch-up, a 20% performance fee up to 20% investor IRR and a 30% performance fee on the residual profit) and a deal-by-deal “American” waterfall are unchanged from the first series.
  • New fund structures established: The Series II Funds 4 and 5 will be structured as new and separate fund vehicles.
  • Fund 5 adverse cost insurance policy: We are in the process of replicating the adverse cost insurance wrapper, a beneficial and innovative feature of Fund 5 series I, prior to the commencement of Fund 5 Series II.
  • Commencement: Series II will commence making investments following the expiry of the first series commitment periods.  Fund 4 series I has approximately US$150 million available for commitments, plus the ability to recycle capital from completed investments up to the end of its commitment period on 18 April 2024.  Similarly, Fund 5 series I has approximately US$77million available for commitments, with the same recycling rights and a commitment period which ends on 31 October 2024.
1 Refer to OBL’s announcement dated 20 June 2019 for further details on these investors. 2 Harvard Management Company (Harvard) has structured its commitment to each Series II fund such that US$50 million is committed unconditionally and the balance of US$25 million is conditional on Harvard’s interest being capped at 15% of the ultimate fund size (i.e., after further closings). 3 OBL’s commitment of US$100 million to each Series II fund is capped at 20% of the ultimate fund size (i.e., after further closings). Raymond van Hulst, Managing Director and CEO, commented “We have achieved an important milestone with this first close of our Series II capital raise at improved cost coverage terms. Our valued capital partners are amongst the most reputable and experienced investors in legal finance. Their ongoing support and our continued access to capital is a strong endorsement of our platform and long term performance track record, particularly given the current private capital landscape. “Our newly established capital markets team has initiated an investor outreach and onboarding campaign dedicated to further expanding our investor base to support our continued growth. This will mark the first time our core funds have been open to new investors in almost six years supporting our strategy of further diversification,” said Mr van Hulst.
Commercial People Moves

UK Funder IQuote Relocates to Support Expansion and Rebrand

Earlier this month, LFJ reported on a Liverpool-based funder’s successful fundraising round. There are more signs of strength from funders in Northwest England, as a Manchester firm has signaled its plans for future growth by expanding its footprint.  An article by Insider Media covers the news that IQuote Limited, a Manchester-based litigation funder, is relocating its offices to a larger location as part of the firm’s growth and rebranding strategy. IQuote has moved from its Dale Street office to the newly refurbished Cardinal House in Manchester's business district, with the funder looking to create 30 new jobs including roles focused on AI, management, finance, marketing, risk, compliance and legal.   Craig Cornick, founder and chief executive of IQuote, stated that the move to Cardinal House “goes beyond mere physical relocation; it symbolises our unwavering dedication to delivering unparalleled services in the sector.” Similarly, Cornick explained that the rebranding efforts are a representation of IQuote’s “dedication to embracing AI and technology in the legal funding landscape”, and that the company is “a testament to the transformative power of technology in reshaping the legal industry and enhancing performance for capital providers." According to IQuote’s website, it has already deployed over £50 million in capital to fund cases and has achieved £110 million in recovered damages. The funder offers a variety of services including operational expenditure loans, legal disbursement funding, and cost advance funding.