Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

2910 Articles

£2.7 Billion Competition Claim Filed Against Amazon, Funded by Innsworth

By Harry Moran |

Following on from the news LFJ reported earlier this month that Amazon was already facing one class action claim in the UK, we have now had confirmation that a second claim has been filed against the online retailing giant over allegations that it has engaged in anticompetitive behaviour.

An announcement from Geradin Partners reveals that a claim has today been filed against Amazon before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which alleges that Amazon’s anticompetitive practices discriminated against third-party sellers and harmed their businesses. The opt-out claim is valued in excess of £2.7 billion and is being brought by Professor Andreas Stephan, professor of competition law at the University of East Anglia, on behalf of more than 200,000 UK third-party sellers on Amazon who used a “professional” selling account on the site between June 2018 and June 2024.

The claim alleges that Amazon has engaged in a wide variety of anticompetitive abuses, including discriminating in favour of its own retail sellers and conditioning third-party sellers’ access to its Amazon Prime service to the use of its own Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA) logistics services. As a result of this conduct, the claim argues that these third-party sellers have been harmed through lost sales, as well as higher costs and paid fees to Amazon. 

Commenting on the announcement, Professor Stephan said: “Amazon has engaged in a variety of strategies to grow its e-commerce platform, lock sellers into it, prevent the expansion of rivals, and use its market dominance to exploit the hundreds of thousands of sellers in Britain that use its platform.” Damian Geradin, founding partner of Geradin Partners, explained that this opt-out claim “gives sellers the opportunity to seek redress for the significant harm they have suffered.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Damian Geradin confirmed that Innsworth Advisors Ltd. is providing litigation funding for the case.

Professor Stephan’s legal team is being led by Geradin Partners, alongside Kieron Beal KC of Blackstone Chambers, Daniel Carall-Green and Hannah Bernstein from Fountain Court Chambers. The claim is also being supported by advisors from Frontier Economics, and a consultative council that includes former Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, Stephen Robertson, former Director General of the British Retail Consortium, and commercial litigation specialist Sue Prevezer KC.More information can be found on the claim website.

Almaden Announces Litigation Financing of up to $9.5 million

By Harry Moran |

Almaden Minerals Ltd. (“Almaden” or “the Company”; TSX: AMM; OTCQB: AAUAF) is pleased to announce that further to its press release of June 17, 2024, it has confirmed non-recourse litigation funding in the amount of up to US$9.5 million to pursue its international arbitration proceedings against the United Mexican States (“Mexico”) under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (“CPTPP”). The Company has also agreed with Almadex Minerals Ltd. (“Almadex”) to an extension to the maturity of its gold loan, and a litigation management agreement to help streamline corporate management of the arbitration process.

  • Non-recourse funding secured to pursue international arbitration proceedings against Mexico;
  • Globally leading counterparty validates quality of legal claims;
  • Gold loan maturity pushed out from March 31, 2026 to March 31, 2030;
  • Litigation Management Agreement streamlines corporate management of the arbitration proceedings to save money and time.

Litigation Financing

The Company has signed a litigation funding agreement (“LFA”) with a leading legal finance provider. The facility is available for immediate draw down for Almaden to pursue damages against Mexico under the CPTPP resulting from Mexico’s actions which blocked the development of the Ixtaca project and ultimately retroactively terminated the Company’s mineral concessions, causing the loss of the Company’s investments in Mexico.

The LFA provides funding which is expected to cover all legal, tribunal and external expert costs of the legal claims, as well as some corporate operating expenses as may be required. The funding is repayable in the event that a damages award is recovered from Mexico, with such repayment being a contingent entitlement to those damages.

The financing follows extensive due diligence by the finance provider. The financing size as well as the quality of the provider is testament to the strength of the Company’s legal claims against Mexico.

Gold Loan Amendment

The Company is also pleased to report that it has agreed with Almadex to extend the maturity of the gold loan (see press release of May 14, 2019) from March 31, 2026 to the earlier of March 31, 2030 or the receipt by Almaden or its subsidiary of any amount relating to its legal claims against Mexico.

In return for this amendment, in addition to its obligation to repay the gold loan, the Company has agreed to pay Almadex 2.0% of the gross amount of any damages award that Almaden may receive as a result of the legal claims, such repayment to be subordinate to amounts due under the LFA, and any additional legal and management fees.

Litigation Management Agreement

Finally, the Company has agreed with Almadex and its Mexican subsidiary to streamline the management of the arbitration proceedings by entering into a Litigation Management Agreement (“LMA”). Under the LMA, Almaden will bear the up-front costs of the arbitration and provide overall direction to the arbitration process for itself and its subsidiaries, as well as Almadex and its subsidiaries, with certain limitations. Almadex will remain a party to the arbitration and continue in its cooperation and support of the process. As noted above, Almaden has already secured litigation funding in the amount anticipated to be needed to fully prosecute the arbitration proceedings.

Should the arbitration proceedings result in an award of damages, the pro rata portion of those damages, if any, which may be attributable to Almadex from the 2.0% NSR royalty it held on the Ixtaca project will be determined. Almadex’s award will consist of this pro rata portion, less its pro rata share of the costs of pursuing the legal claims, including the financing costs (the “Almadex Award”). Almadex will compensate Almaden in the amount of 10% of the Almadex Award in exchange for managing the claim proceedings.

Safe Harbor Statement

Certain of the statements and information in this news release constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian provincial securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements or information. Forward-looking statements or information in this news release relate to, among other things, the total potential cost of the legal claims and the sufficiency of the money available under the LFA to cover these costs, the ability of the LMA to streamline corporate management of the legal claims, and the result and damages arising from the Company’s request for arbitration.

These forward-looking statements and information reflect the Company’s current views with respect to future events and are necessarily based upon a number of assumptions that, while considered reasonable by the Company, are inherently subject to significant legal, regulatory, business, operational and economic uncertainties and contingencies, and such uncertainty generally increases with longer-term forecasts and outlook. These assumptions include: stability and predictability in Mexico’s response to the arbitration process under the CPTPP; stability and predictability in the application of the CPTPP and arbitral decisions thereon; the ability to continue to finance the arbitration process, and continued respect for the rule of law in Mexico. The foregoing list of assumptions is not exhaustive.

The Company cautions the reader that forward-looking statements and information involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or information contained in this news release. Such risks and other factors include, among others, risks related to: the application of the CPTPP and arbitral decisions thereon; continued respect for the rule of law in Mexico; political risk in Mexico; crime and violence in Mexico; corruption in Mexico; uncertainty as to the outcome of arbitration; as well as those factors discussed the section entitled "Risk Factors" in Almaden's Annual Information Form and Almaden's latest Form 20-F on file with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could affect the Company and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements or information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that our forward-looking statements or information will prove to be accurate. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements or information. Except as required by law, the Company does not assume any obligation to release publicly any revisions to on forward-looking statements or information contained in this news release to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

Read More

Wordsmith Raises $5M to Empower Lawyers to Scale with AI

By Harry Moran |

Wordsmith, the AI-powered legal assistant platform, has raised $5 million to transform the legal industry and unleash a new generation of hyper-skilled legal professionals.

The seed funding was led by Index Ventures, with participation from General Catalyst and angel investors including Skyscanner founder Gareth Williams. The investment is a sign of how applied AI is rapidly augmenting and enabling professional services – a shift as profound as the transition to digital devices and word processing 40 years ago.

“AI is not about replacing professionals. It's about making them better at their jobs,” explains Wordsmith CEO Ross McNairn. “Just as the word processor didn't replace writers, but instead made them more productive, Wordsmith is ushering in a new era of AI-assisted professional services.”

Wordsmith is solving a critical problem faced by in-house legal teams: the overwhelming volume of routine tasks that leave lawyers struggling to keep up with the demands of the business. From confirming policy details to contract analysis and complex financing, the demand for human judgment and the consequences of oversight are high – yet many of the outputs are repeatable and templated. Wordsmith customers get 90% of the through-put of a world-class lawyer and a 99% cost reduction versus going to a law firm, all within 60 seconds.

Hannah Seal, the partner at Index Ventures who led the investment, says: “Wordsmith is at the vanguard of a fundamental shift in how professional services are delivered. It’s not about replacement but augmentation. By harnessing the power of generative AI, they're not only transforming the legal industry, but also paving the way for a future in which AI-assisted professionals can provide better, faster, and more affordable services to their clients.”

Wordsmith was founded in 2023 by Ross McNairn, Volodymyr Giginiak and Robbie Falkenthal. After training as a lawyer, McNairn sold his first startup to Skyscanner in 2016 and most recently was Chief Product and Technology Officer at Travelperk. CTO Giginiak, one of the first engineers at Meta in London who worked for a decade in key roles at Facebook and Instagram, was helping to implement anti-drone technology for the Ukrainian army before joining Wordsmith. Robbie Falkenthal, COO, is a qualified lawyer who has previously held senior roles at KPMG and Travelperk.For additional information regarding Wordsmith visit https://www.wordsmith.ai/ and follow on LinkedIn.

Read More

Nakiki SE: New Litigation Funding Agreement, Value in Dispute EUR 5 Million: Funding for Defendant

By Harry Moran |

Nakiki SE announces that Legal Finance International GmbH has concluded a litigation financing agreement with a value in dispute of up to EUR 5 million. This litigation financing agreement relates to funding for the defendant:

In selected individual cases, Legal Finance also finances the legal costs of the opposing party or defendant and, in the event of victory, receives twice the legal costs incurred as well as a staggered one-off payment as a premium. In this case, the premium can be up to EUR 785,000.

NAKIKI SE
Johnsallee 30
20148 Hamburg
Germany

Andreas Wegerich, CEO Nakiki

Read More

Armadillo Litigation Funding Welcomes Nicole Bakare, Esq. as New Managing Director

By Harry Moran |

Armadillo Litigation Funding, a premier and trusted alternative asset class litigation funding company, is pleased to announce the appointment of Nicole Bakare, Esq. as the new Managing Director. In this role, Ms. Bakare will enhance and expand the underlying credit offering of the company's platform and assist in monitoring current portfolios, contributing to the strategic growth and success of the firm and its clients.

Ms. Bakare joins Armadillo Litigation Funding from the Houston office of a large multinational law firm, where she represented corporate clients across a variety of industries in all phases of civil litigation, including state and federal courts, arbitration, and bankruptcy-related litigation. Her extensive experience and dedication to excellence make her a valuable addition to the Armadillo team.

"We are thrilled to have Nicole Bakare join our team," said Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding. "Her legal expertise and strategic insight will be instrumental in driving our investment evaluation processes and enhancing our portfolio, ultimately benefiting the firms we serve by providing more effective and targeted funding solutions."

Ms. Bakare is a graduate of The University of Michigan and Tulane University Law School. She has been a member of the State Bar of Texas since 2006. Throughout her career, she has held prominent positions at Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Cozen O'Connor; Doyle, Restrepo, Harvin & Robbins LLP; and served as a briefing attorney to Justice Evelyn V. Keyes at the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas.

Ms. Bakare expressed her enthusiasm about joining Armadillo Litigation Funding, stating, "I am honored to join Armadillo Litigation Funding, a firm renowned for its excellence and commitment to providing top-tier funding solutions in the complex litigation space," said Nicole Bakare. "I look forward to leveraging my experience to support our clients and help drive their success through strategic investment evaluation and dedicated service."

For more information about Armadillo Litigation Funding and its services, please visit www.armadillolf.com.

About Armadillo Litigation Funding: Armadillo Litigation Funding is a leading provider of alternative asset class funding in mass tort, consumer, and commercial litigation. Armadillo offers general obligation loans secured by the borrowers' interests in current and future awards, including, but not limited to, contingent fees.

Read More

Chambers & Partners Release its Litigation Support Guide for 2024

By Harry Moran |

The Chambers & Partners rankings provide an annual guide to the top firms in each region and practice area, as well as highlighting the established industry leaders alongside the rising stars to watch in these companies.

Today, Chambers & Partners released its Chambers Litigation Support Guide for 2024, which includes rankings for 337 individual practitioners and more than 376 firms, including practice areas such as litigation funding, forensic accounting, business intelligence and investigations, and PR and communications. 

In the Global-wide ranking covering litigation funding for international arbitration, Chambers ranked 11 firms across three bands. Burford Capital, Litigation Capital Management, Therium Capital Management, Fortress Investment Group, and Omni Bridgeway are listed in Band 1. Bench Walk Advisors, Harbour Litigation Funding, Parabellum Capital, and Nivalion are listed in Band 2. Profile Management and Tenor Capital Management are the two firms listed in Band 3.

The guide also contains regional litigation funding rankings for Australia, Canada, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, South-East Asia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across several of these regions, the guide also provides rankings for litigation funding brokers, insurers, and underwriters.

A new addition to this year’s guide is the rankings for Litigation Finance Deal Counsel in the USA, with these rankings recognising ‘law firms advising on litigation funding agreements.’ This ranking includes Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein and Schulte Roth & Zabel in Band 1, with Levenfeld Pearlstein, Much Shelist, and McDonald Hopkins in Band 2.All the rankings can be accessed through the Chambers Litigation Support Guide hub.

Erso Capital Funding £382M Claim Against Salmon Producers’ Price-Fixing Cartel

By Harry Moran |

The funding of UK class action lawsuits appears to be once again gaining momentum, as following LFJ’s reporting last week on an £878 million opt-out claim brought against Royal Mail, there has now been the announcement of a new £382 million claim targeting some of the world’s largest salmon producers.

Reporting from The Guardian covers the filing of a new collective action proceeding order filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) last Thursday. This opt-out claim is being brought on behalf of UK consumers, and is targeting six salmon producers over allegations that they breached competition law by colluding to increase the price of farmed Atlantic salmon. The ‘salmon claim’ is seeking up to £382 million in compensation for consumers who bought these salmon products between October 2015 and May 2019. The salmon producers accused of forming this price-fixing cartel are: Mowi, Mowi Holdings, SalMar, Lerøy, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg.

The claim has been filed by Waterside Class Limited, a company set up to bring this claim on behalf of UK consumers, with Anne Heal acting as the class representative. The claim is being represented by Simmons & Simmons, along with Sarah Abram KC and Matthew Kennedy of Brick Court Chambers, and Camilla Cockerill of 4 New Square Chambers. Waterside has also secured funding for the claim from Erso Capital, along with litigation insurance protection.

Heal, who previously led the Thames Water customer challenge group, said: “This action claims that some of the Atlantic salmon farming industry’s biggest companies have conspired to raid the wallets of hard-working shoppers. This action aims to seek fair redress for the millions of British consumers who we say spent years overpaying for one of the UK’s favourite and highly nutritious foods.”

Of the six salmon producers targeted in the claim, three did not provide a comment to The Guardian, Mowi denied that it had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, whilst Grieg Seafood similarly denied any wrongdoing and stated they would “exercise all our rights of defence”. 

Salmar provided the most thorough response, with a spokesperson for the company stating: “SalMar is aware of the planned legal action on behalf of the UK consumers. SalMar disputes strongly the allegations of price fixing and notes that the European Commission has not reached any final decision on its investigation. SalMar contests all of these allegations and will defend vigorously any legal proceedings brought against it in the UK.”For information about the claim, read the press release from Waterside or visit the claim website.

Louisiana Governor Signs Litigation Funding Transparency Bill

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported earlier this month, the push for state-level regulation of the litigation finance industry has continued to make progress, with a bill in the Louisiana legislature now set to become law in just over a month. 

An article in Bloomberg Law covers the news that Louisiana’s governor Jeff Landry has signed Senate Bill 355 into law, which introduces new measures regulating the use of litigation finance in Louisiana. The bill primarily focuses on two areas of regulation: the disclosure of third-party litigation funding, and the involvement of foreign persons, states or wealth funds in third-party funding.

SB355 requires any foreign litigation funder involved in a civil action in Louisiana to disclose its details to the state’s attorney general (AG), and to provide the AG with a copy of the funding agreement. The bill also prohibits funders from controlling the legal action in any way, and from being ‘assigned rights in a civil action for which the litigation funder has provided funding’.

Gov. Landry signed the bill on June 19 and it will become effective from August 1. The full text of SB355 can be read here.

ILFA Seeking to Hire Director of Global Public Affairs and Executive Director

By Harry Moran |

In a series of posts on LinkedIn, the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) announced that it is looking to fill two roles at the organisation: Director of Global Public Affairs and an Executive Director.

For the position of Director of Global Public Affairs, ILFA states that it is seeking ‘a motivated public affairs and policy professional looking to help facilitate the development and growth of the commercial legal finance industry and drive the success of ILFA’s priority areas’. The responsibilities for this role include: developing and implementing strategy to achieve ILFA’s policy objectives, facilitating discussions to increase education around legal finance, and managing ILFA’s external government affairs and communications consultants. The position is based in Washington, DC and will report to ILFA’s Board of Directors.

For the role of Executive Director, ILFA said that it is looking for ‘an experienced executive-level leader passionate about the intersection of law and finance who will work with top commercial legal finance companies and influential leaders’. The key responsibilities for the incoming director will include: driving ILFA’s membership growth and retention, expanding and maintaining ILFA’s funding sources and revenue streams, and organising ILFA’s industry events. The position is based in London, UK and will also report to ILFA’s Board of Directors.

The full job descriptions for each of the roles can be found at the following links: 

Director, Global Public Affairs 
Executive Director

In order to apply for either of these roles, applicants should submit a cover letter and resume to ILFA's Acting Executive Director Shannon Campagna at scampagna@ILFA.com before the deadline of July 31.

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Best Practices for Implementing AI

By Anthony Johnson |

The following article was contributed by Anthony Johnson, CEO of the Johnson Firm and Stellium.

The ascent of AI in law firms has thrust the intricate web of complexities and legal issues surrounding their implementation into the spotlight. As law firms grapple with the delicate balance between innovation and ethical considerations, they are tasked with navigating the minefield of AI ethics, AI bias, and synthetic data. Nevertheless, within these formidable challenges, law firms are presented with a singular and unparalleled opportunity to shape the landscape of AI law, copyright ownership decisively, and AI human rights.

Conducting Due Diligence on AI Technologies

Law firms embarking on the integration of AI into their practices must commence with conducting comprehensive due diligence. This process entails a precise evaluation of the AI technology's origins, development process, and the integrity of the data utilized for training. Safeguarding that the AI systems adopted must be meticulously developed with legally sourced and unbiased data sets. This measure is the linchpin in averting potential ethical or legal repercussions. It is especially paramount to be acutely mindful of the perils posed by AI bias and AI hallucination, both of which have the potential to undermine the fairness and credibility of legal outcomes.

Guidelines must decisively address the responsible use of AI, encompassing critical issues related to AI ethics, AI law, and copyright ownership. Furthermore, defining the scope of AI's decision-making power within legal cases is essential to avert any over-reliance on automated processes. By setting these boundaries, law firms demonstrate compliance with existing legal standards and actively shape the development of new norms in the rapidly evolving realm of legal AI.

Training and Awareness Programs for Lawyers

Implementing AI tech in law firms isn't just a technical challenge; it's also a cultural shift. Regular training and awareness programs must be conducted to ensure responsible and effective use. These programs should focus on legal tech training, providing lawyers and legal staff with a deep understanding of AI capabilities and limitations. Addressing ethical AI use and the implications of AI on human rights in daily legal tasks is also required. Empowering legal teams with knowledge and tools will enhance their technological competence and drive positive change.

Risks and Ethical Considerations of Using AI in Legal Practices

Confidentiality and Data Privacy Concerns

The integration of AI within legal practices presents substantial risks concerning confidentiality and data privacy. Law firms entrusted with handling sensitive information must confront the stark reality that the deployment of AI technologies directly threatens client confidentiality if mishandled. AI systems' insatiable appetite for large datasets during training lays bare the potential for exposing personal client data to unauthorized access or breaches. Without question, unwaveringly robust data protection measures must be enacted to safeguard trust and uphold the legal standards of confidentiality.

Intellectual Property and Copyright Issues

The pivotal role of AI in content generation has ignited intricate debates surrounding intellectual property rights and copyright ownership. As AI systems craft documents and materials, determining rightful ownership—be it the AI, the developer, or the law firm—emerges as a fiercely contested matter. This not only presents legal hurdles but also engenders profound ethical deliberations concerning the attribution and commercialization of AI-generated content within the legal domain.

Bias and Discrimination in AI Outputs

The critical risk looms large: the potential for AI to perpetuate or even exacerbate biases. AI systems, mere reflections of the data they are trained on, stand as monuments to the skewed training materials that breed discriminatory outcomes. This concern is especially poignant in legal practices, where the mandate for fair and impartial decisions reigns supreme. Addressing AI bias is not just important; it is imperative to prevent the unjust treatment of individuals based on flawed or biased AI assessments, thereby upholding the irrefutable principles of justice and equality in legal proceedings.

Worst Case Scenarios: The Legal Risks and Pitfalls of Misusing AI

Violations of Client Confidentiality

The most egregious risk lies in the potential violation of client confidentiality. Law firms that dare to integrate AI tools must guarantee that these systems are absolutely impervious to breaches that could compromise sensitive information. Without the most stringent security measures, AI dares to inadvertently leak client data, resulting in severe legal repercussions and the irrevocable loss of client trust. This scenario emphatically underscores the necessity for robust data protection protocols in all AI deployments.

Intellectual Property Issues

The misuse of AI inevitably leads to intricate intellectual property disputes. As AI systems possess the capability to generate legal documents and other intellectual outputs, the question of copyright ownership—whether it pertains to the AI, the law firm, or the original data providers—becomes a source of contention. Mismanagement in this domain can precipitate costly litigation, thrusting law firms into the task of navigating a labyrinth of AI law and copyright ownership issues. It is important that firms assertively delineate ownership rights in their AI deployment strategies to circumvent these potential pitfalls preemptively.

Ethical Breaches and Professional Misconduct

The reckless application of AI in legal practices invites ethical breaches and professional misconduct. Unmonitored AI systems presume to make decisions, potentially flouting the ethical standards decreed by legal authorities. The specter of AI bias looms large, capable of distorting decision-making in an unjust and discriminatory manner. Law firms must enforce stringent guidelines and conduct routine audits of their AI tools to uphold ethical compliance, thereby averting any semblance of professional misconduct that could mar their esteemed reputation and credibility.

Case Studies: Success and Cautionary Tales in AI Implementation

Successful AI Integrations in Law Firms

The legal industry has witnessed numerous triumphant AI integrations that have set the gold standard for technology adoption, unequivocally elevating efficiency and accuracy. Take, for example, a prominent U.S. law firm that fearlessly harnessed AI to automate document analysis for litigation cases, substantially reducing lawyers' document review time while magnifying the precision of findings. Not only did this optimization revolutionize the workflow, but it also empowered attorneys to concentrate on more strategic tasks, thereby enhancing client service and firm profitability. In another case, an international law firm adopted AI-driven predictive analytics to forecast litigation outcomes. This tool provided unprecedented precision in advising clients on the feasibility of pursuing or settling cases, strengthening client trust and firm reputation. These examples highlight the transformative potential of AI when integrated into legal frameworks.

Conclusion

Integrating AI within the legal sector is an urgent reality that law firms cannot ignore. While the ascent of AI presents complex challenges, it also offers an unparalleled opportunity to shape AI law, copyright ownership, and AI human rights. To successfully implement AI in legal practices, due diligence on AI technologies, training programs for lawyers, and establishing clear guidelines and ethical standards are crucial. However, risks and moral considerations must be carefully addressed, such as confidentiality and data privacy concerns, intellectual property and copyright issues, and bias and discrimination in AI outputs. Failure to do so can lead to violations of client confidentiality and costly intellectual property disputes. By navigating these risks and pitfalls, law firms can harness the transformative power of AI while upholding legal standards and ensuring a fair and just legal system.

Read More

£878M Opt-Out Claim Brought Against Royal Mail, Backed by £10M in Funding 

By Harry Moran |

A new claim has been brought against International Distribution Services, the owner of Royal Mail, over allegations that it ‘prevented competition for bulk mail delivery services’ which in turn led to end-customers being overcharged for these services. The opt-out claim is being brought on behalf of any customers who purchased bulk mail services since January 2024, with an estimated 290,000 potential class members seeking up to £878 million in compensation for these overcharges.

An article in the Financial Times reveals that the application to bring collective proceedings was filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on Thursday, with the action being led by the Proposed Class Representative, Robin Aaronson and supported by law firm Lewis Silkin. According to the Bulk Mail Claim website, it has secured £10 million in funding from ‘a specialist litigation funder to bring the claim’ and has ‘put in after the event (ATE) insurance to cover its liability to pay Royal Mail’s costs if the claim is unsuccessful.’

In a press release announcing the filing of the claim, Robin Aaronson said:

“Where there has been an abuse of dominant position, as has occurred in this case, it is important that those suffering loss are able to obtain redress. A collective claim is the only fair and efficient form of redress in this case, given that there are hundreds of thousands of affected customers and it would be commercially unviable for them to bring individual proceedings.”

Andrew Wanambwa, Partner in the Dispute Resolution team at Lewis Silkin, also provided the following comment:

“Royal Mail abused its dominant position, resulting in hundreds of thousands of bulk mail customers being overcharged. The purpose of this claim is to hold Royal Mail accountable for its actions and secure compensation for affected customers.”

Responding to the announcement of the filing, Royal Mail confirmed that it had received the application and said, “We consider [the claim] to be without merit and we will defend it robustly.” The draft Collective Proceedings Order can be read here.

Rockhopper Exploration Announces Receipt of Tranche 1 Funds for the Ombrina Mare Monetisation Transaction

By Harry Moran |

Rockhopper Exploration plc is pleased to provide the following update in relation to the monetisation of its Ombrina Mare Arbitration Award (the "Transaction") announced on 20 December 2023.

Having satisfied all precedent conditions to the Transaction as announced on 17 June 2024, the Company confirms that the Tranche 1 payment has been received.

Rockhopper has received €19 million of the €45 million Tranche 1 payment. As previously disclosed, Rockhopper entered into a litigation funding agreement in 2017 under which all costs relating to the Arbitration from commencement to the rendering of the Award were paid on its behalf by a separate specialist arbitration funder (the "Original Arbitration Funder"). That agreement entitles the Original Arbitration Funder to a proportion of any proceeds from the Award or any monetisation of the Award. The balance of €26 million has gone to Original Arbitration Funder in order to fully discharge the Company of all of its liabilities under the agreement with the Original Arbitration Funder. Tranches 2 and 3 of the Award remain payable to Rockhopper upon a successful annulment outcome.

As previously disclosed, success fees of approximately €4 million are owed to Rockhopper's legal representatives if Rockhopper win the claim, meaning liability is established and Italy is required to pay more than a nominal sum in damages (either by way of award or settlement in an amount equal to or more than €25 million).

Following receipt of the Tranche 1 payment, Rockhopper's cash balance is approximately $27 million.

Please refer to the Company's announcement on 20 December 2023 for further details on the Ombrina Mare Arbitration Award. Capitalised terms shall have the same meaning as in the 20 December 2023 announcement.

Samuel Moody, CEO, commented:

"We are delighted to have received the Tranche 1 payment under the Ombrina Mare monetisation agreement.  This cash gives us the strongest balance sheet we have had for a number of years, and we remain confident in the merits of our legal case as we await the decision of the Ad Hoc Panel on the annulment request from the Italian Republic."

Read More

Industry Leaders React to House Committee Hearing on Funding Disclosure

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered earlier this week, a recent hearing in the US House Judiciary Committee reignited arguments around the appropriate level of disclosure required when third-party funders are involved in patent lawsuits. Whilst the hearing largely highlighted the arguments in favour of more stringent disclosure requirements, legal professionals and funders are now offering their own differing perspectives on these contentious issues.

An article in IAM looks at last week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, focusing on the testimonies from witnesses called before the committee and examining the counter-arguments from industry professionals who are opposed to the introduction of excessively broad disclosure rules for litigation funders. As the article explains, the main point of contention around this issue relates to the level of disclosure required, with most third-party funding participants being open to the disclosure of a funder’s identity, but opposed to the disclosure of the financial details of funding agreements.

Erick Robinson, attorney at Spencer Fane, told IAM that mandating disclosure of the particulars of any funding agreement would be incredibly damaging for plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits. Robinson argued well-resourced defendants would “run modeling and be able to reverse engineer the budget based on their knowledge of funding agreements”, which would lead to these defendants dragging out the lawsuit to deplete the funder’s budget. Robinson also questioned the justification for providing defendants with this level of detail, claiming that “there's no legitimate reason any defendant should ever get strategic financial information.”

Anup Misra, managing director at Curiam Capital, concurred with Robinson’s arguments and acknowledged that whilst they would be open to allowing a judge to review the funding agreement, “we just wouldn’t want the economics of a funding agreement to be sent to the defence counsel.” Misra went on to question the idea that third-party funding introduces ‘unknown unknowns’ to the court, as it was described by one witness at the hearing. Misra argued that it should be left to the judge in any given case to decide if they require more information around the involvement of funders, suggesting that “if something were to happen during pending litigation, I'm sure those judges would then determine whether they wanted to see a funding agreement.”

Latest Burford Quarterly Explores How Business and Economic Trends are Impacting Commercial Disputes Across Industries

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases its latest Burford Quarterly, a journal of legal finance that explores the top trends at the nexus of law and finance.

Articles in the Burford Quarterly 3 2024 include:

  • The business and legal trends shaping healthcare

The US healthcare industry is one of the country's largest. Business factors from consolidation to rising costs to lingering Covid-19 impacts are contributing to increases in major disputes, which are in turn driving shifts in how healthcare businesses pursue and finance recoveries.

  • Expert insights: Construction disputes roundtable

Burford moderates a roundtable of construction dispute experts as they discuss megaprojects, AI and the challenges of accurately forecasting and managing construction disputes.

  • The European perspective: Assessing the impact of the Unified Patent Court

A year after its launch, patent experts weigh in on the new UPC pan-European patent litigation system impacting 17 member nations, more than 300 million people and, increasingly, businesses and law firms pursuing corporate IP monetization, including expectations of increasing use and acceptance of the UPC.

  • Judges weigh in on financial disclosure

Judges at a recent legal finance industry conference explained why mandatory disclosure of legal finance is unnecessary and would hinder the efficiency of businesses pursuing their claims.

David Perla, Co-COO of Burford Capital, said: "Our latest Burford Quarterly takes an in-depth look at how economic factors and business trends are contributing to impacts on companies across industries. Of particular note is a close analysis of the US healthcare sector, where increasing consolidation and rising costs is causing more and larger disputes. We also talk to industry experts on topics including the rise in construction sector disputes and the impact of the EU's Unified Patent Court, which for the last year has enabled businesses to enforce their rights across all 17 member nations much more effectively, leading to a big rise in interest in financing IP litigation in Europe."

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.

This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford.

Read More

SRA Conducting ‘20 Live Investigations’ into Solicitors and Law Firms Involved in Post Office Scandal

By Harry Moran |

An announcement from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) revealed that its investigation of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal now encompasses ‘20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms who were working on behalf of the Post Office/Royal Mail Group.’ The SRA said that it was releasing this update as a result of ‘the recent significant interest in the Post Office Horizon Scandal and the resumption of hearings at the ongoing statutory public inquiry.’

The SRA said that it was investigating a range of issues related to the actions of the solicitors and these firms including: the management and supervision of cases, the use of expert witnesses, disclosure obligations and the improper application of privilege, and issues with the operation of the Post Office Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme. However, the statement emphasised that ‘this is not an exhaustive list’, and that the investigation would also encompass ‘the conduct of solicitors in relation to their engagement and cooperation with the ongoing public inquiry.’

Paul Philip, chief executive of the SRA, included the following comment in the statement:

“The impact of this miscarriage of justice on so many individuals is tragic. We have live investigations into the actions of lawyers in these cases. Although the range of issues we are investigating is complex, the fundamentals are simple. The public expect solicitors to behave ethically. They must act independently and do the right thing in the interests of justice.

We will take action where we find they have failed to do so. This is vital to protect the public, maintain trust in the profession, and send a clear message that any solicitor behaving unethically should expect serious consequences. We will act as swiftly as we can, but it is important that we get this right. We owe that to everyone impacted in this case and the wider public.”

The SRA’s full statement on the investigation can be read here.

Arcadia Finance Announces Launch of New Litigation Funding Firm

By Harry Moran |

Arcadia Finance, a new litigation funding firm focused on commercial litigation and arbitration, today announced its official launch to offer customized financial solutions and unparalleled support to empower clients and partners in achieving their legal goals. Led by litigation funding veterans David KersteinRonit Cohen, and Joshua Libling, the Arcadia leadership team has decades of funding and litigation experience, having collectively originated or underwritten over 80 transactions with funding commitments of more than $400 million.

Arcadia has secured access to over $100 million in investment capital with a broad mandate to offer solutions to all participants in the legal market. Arcadia expects most of its deals to be in the $2 million to $25 million range but can fund matters with commitments as low as $500,000 and as high as necessary to meet a client’s needs. “I believe that the future of litigation funding is client-focused,” Kerstein said, “and that means being able to meet clients where they are and cover the waterfront of potential litigation-backed investment opportunities.”

Arcadia’s focus on U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation and domestic and international arbitration is open to the whole spectrum of litigation-based assets, from mass torts to law firm lending to patent acquisition, including cross border and offshore matters.

“The team of Dave, Joshua, and Ronit are recognized and valued across the industry as one of the most trusted, experienced and successful funding teams. They are client-focused, fair and easy to work with. Their deep expertise and stellar credentials in not only litigation and arbitration but also in the funding industry enable them to quickly come up with creative and flexible solutions for their clients,” said Roman Silberfeld, National Trial Chair at Robins Kaplan, one of the nation’s premier trial law firms. “They are at the very top of the industry.”

The Arcadia Approach

Arcadia Finance goes beyond traditional finance. The firm is dedicated to providing “frictionless funding” through true partnerships with clients and law firms providing:

  • Customized Solutions: Arcadia tailors its funding approach to meet the specific needs of each case, engaging in proprietary risk analysis to ensure appropriate pricing and the best possible outcomes.
  • Responsive and Supportive Team: Arcadia's team is committed to providing transparency, responsive communication and authentic guidance throughout the entire litigation process.
  • Forward-Thinking Approach: Arcadia stays ahead of the curve, leveraging its expertise to anticipate challenges and strategize for success.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Arcadia is committed to exceeding client expectations by fostering trust and loyalty through a genuine dedication to clients’ success.

Cohen said: “At Arcadia Finance, we prioritize what matters most–our clients’ cases. We understand the challenges you face, having been trial lawyers ourselves. That’s why we created our ‘frictionless funding’ approach. It means streamlined processes, clear communication, and efficient decision-making, all aimed at getting clients the capital they need, fast. This empowers lawyers to focus on what they do best–advocating for their clients and achieving the best possible outcomes. Our transparent approach gives clients the information they need at every step, fostering trust and building a diversified, well-considered portfolio for investors.”

The Arcadia Team

Ronit Cohen, Co-Founder & Managing Director: One of the most experienced professionals in the funding industry, Ronit spent seven years at Bentham IMF, now Omni Bridgeway, where she helped launch their first office. She then joined Validity Finance 5 years ago, shortly after its launch. Ronit’s focus is on underwriting, having spent over a decade leading, creating, and monitoring litigation merits and risk projects. At Validity, she also headed up a pro bono effort to provide capital to wrongfully accused individuals during the pendency of their civil actions. Prior to joining the funding industry, Ronit was a litigator at Simpson Thacher and O’Melveny and Meyers. She received a B.A. from Yale University and a J.D. from Columbia University, graduating as a James Kent Scholar.

David Kerstein, Co-Founder & Managing Director: Dave is another industry pioneer. He was one of Validity Finance’s co-founders and served as Managing Director and Senior Investment Officer. In addition to co-leading Validity’s origination and structuring teams, he helped to guide Validity’s strategic growth into new and expanded markets and avenues for investment. Prior to co-founding Validity, Dave was an investment manager at Bentham IMF. He has been named among Lawdragon’s “Global 100 Leaders in Legal Finance” and selected by Who’s Who Legal as a “Thought Leader in Third Party Funding.” Prior to entering the litigation finance industry, Dave spent 15 years as a trial lawyer focused on complex commercial litigation and arbitration at Gibson Dunn. He received his J.D. from University of Pennsylvania (Toll Scholar) and a B.A. from University of Pennsylvania (Benjamin Franklin Scholar).

Joshua Libling, Co-Founder & Managing Director: Joshua was a member of Validity Finance’s senior leadership team with primary responsibility for risk analysis and pricing tools. His focus is on translating subjective legal merits assessments into trackable risk data that informs Arcadia’s investment decisions and portfolio construction. He is also responsible for modeling and operations at Arcadia. Joshua was previously a litigator at Boies Schiller Flexner, where he was involved in some of the country’s highest-profile and highest-stakes litigations and has worked extensively on appellate matters. He clerked for Judges on SDNY and the Second Circuit. Joshua has been named among Lawdragon’s “Global 100 Leaders in Legal Finance.” He received a J.D. from NYU Law School (magna cum laude) and his undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago.

About Arcadia Finance

Based in New York City, Arcadia Finance cuts through the red tape of litigation funding. Our seamless collaboration, clear deal terms, and broad mandate empower clients to navigate challenges, make informed decisions, and secure capital–fast. Led by industry veterans with over $400 million invested across 80+ deals, Arcadia offers adaptable solutions for all–from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. For more information, go to www.arcadiafin.com.

Read More

House Judiciary Committee Hearing Places Funding Disclosure in the Spotlight

By Harry Moran |

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers a hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee last week, which featured a discussion on the role of third-party litigation funding in US lawsuits. The committee hearing explored several issues raised around third-party funding, including the desire for increased transparency and disclosure of the presence of outside funding, and the alleged national security implications of the use of litigation finance by foreign businesses or state governments.

Darrel Issa, a representative from California, argued that there was a consensus “that in fact more transparency at a base level needs to be there”, and stated that he would begin drafting legislation to address the issue of disclosure in the following days. Bob Goodlatte, the former representative from Virginia, spoke as one of the witnesses at the hearing and focused on the issue of disclosure for foreign entities, highlighting previous reporting from Bloomberg about third-party funding activities undertaken by Russian and Chinese entities.

Taking a more moderate stance on the level of disclosure required, Victoria Sahani, a law professor at Boston University, suggested that the disclosure of individual funding agreements was not necessary as long as the identity of the funder is disclosed. Explaining her position on the issue, Sahana said: “We should be cautious not to shut down this new industry or reduce opportunities for this industry to improve the administration of justice out of fear”.

Donald Kochan, law professor at George Mason University, argued that there is evidence that when disclosure rules are implemented, it does dissuade certain third parties from engaging as third-party funders. Citing the example of Delaware, where Judge Connolly’s 2022 standing order on disclosure was introduced, Kochan stated that a wider implementation of these measures will “deter a lot of behavior because people just don’t want the sunshine on this.”

Minnesota Judge Rules Against Burford and Sysco in Enforcing Settlements

By John Freund |

As LFJ reported earlier this month, the ongoing saga of the control of antitrust lawsuits between Sysco and Burford Capital saw a new development, when a Minnesota court denied the parties request for a substitution of plaintiff. Now, a court in Illinois has handed another blow to Burford as it has denied the funder’s objections to the enforcement of a settlement between Sysco and poultry processing company Pilgrim’s Pride.

An article from Reuters provides an overview of the ruling from Judge Thomas M. Durkin in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which granted Pilgrim’s Pride motion to enforce the settlement with Sysco. The enforcement of the settlement in the antitrust lawsuit had been opposed by Burford Capital’s subsidiary Carina Ventures, arguing that a written agreement was necessary and Pilgrim had not “performed any of its obligations under the supposed settlement. 

In his ruling, Judge Durkin found that “neither argument is sufficient to undermine the objective evidence of agreement that is in the record”, citing emails between the parties from August to December 2022 which thereby provided “sufficient objective evidence of an agreement to enforce it.” With regards to Carina’s objection that this court did not have the jurisdiction to enforce the settlements in the claims taking place in Minnesota, stating that “it cannot be that there is no court with jurisdiction to enforce the global settlement.” 

Judge Durkin expanded on this issue of jurisdictions by saying: “This Court exercising jurisdiction to enforce settlement of actions pending in Minnesota will not interfere with the Minnesota proceedings between Pilgrim’s and Carina/Sysco – it will end them.”

Reuters’ article includes a quote from a Burford spokesperson which emphasised the company’s concern “that the court has today opted to enforce a supposed agreement that the parties clearly never viewed as binding.”The full ruling from Judge Durkin can be read here.

Litigation Finance Company Founder Scoops Coveted Award

By Harry Moran |

The founder of a major legal finance firm has been voted Most Influential CEO 2024 by a leading magazine.

Craig Cornick, CEO of Manchester- based IQuote Limited, was given the accolade by CEO Monthly for his contribution to legal services in the North-West.

Now in its third year, the awards celebrate the extraordinary achievements of the world's most influential CEOs; whose strategic acumen, transformative leadership, and unwavering commitment are recognised.

The awards are judged purely on merit with all winners assessed against multiple criteria, including company performance over a given period of time, experience within the industry, sector or region, previous accolades won, outstanding client testimonials, feedback or recommendations.

Addressing the win, Craig said: “Receiving the Most Influential CEO award is an incredible honour.

“It reflects the heart and soul that every member of IQuote invests in our shared vision.

“This recognition isn't just about leadership, it's about the relationships we've built, the challenges we've overcome, and the shared triumphs that define our journey.”

Since the beginning of his entrepreneurial career, Craig has remained a respected stalwart in the industry as he continues to revolutionise legal finance.

Recently, in a new commitment to encourage entrepreneurial spirit, he has also become a mentor to several young business owners in Manchester.

His decision to give back is rooted in his commitment to nurturing talent and contributing to the growth of Manchester's business community.

Founded in 2016, IQuote Limited specialises in legal asset and opex capital loans, with a primary focus on legal asset investing.

The firm, based in Cardinal House, Manchester, is constantly pushing for inventive solutions and prepared to offer investments to startups in the legal, technology and customer service sectors.

CEO Monthly is part of AI Global Media, an internationally focused B2B digital publishing group founded in 2010.

Craig’s recent win further shows IQuote’s commitment to drive innovation within the legal sector.

He added: “I am immensely proud of the IQuote team and their passion for making a lasting impact.

“Our influence is not just measured in awards but in the positive change we bring to the world and offering better access to justice for thousands of people.

“It serves as a powerful reminder that true influence is built on a foundation of collaboration and a commitment to shaping a better future.

“Thank you to my incredible team for making this achievement possible and once again thank you to CEO Monthly for their recognition. It is truly humbling."

A spokesperson from CEO Monthly Magazine, said: “Craig has demonstrated exceptional leadership and innovation in the legal services sector.

“His consistent focus on leveraging technology to disrupt traditional industries, particularly in litigation funding, highlights his commitment to enhancing access to justice for society's most vulnerable.

“Furthermore, Craig's philanthropic efforts distinguish him as a socially responsible leader. As the leading fundraiser for a Manchester charity event, he rallied thousands of pounds for the CEO Sleepout initiative, raising over £10,000 to combat homelessness.

“In recognition of his transformative leadership, entrepreneurial achievements, and commitment to social responsibility, Craig Cornick is undoubtedly a deserving candidate for this year’s awards.”

LCM Appoints New Chief Financial Officer

By Harry Moran |

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions internationally, announces the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer, David Collins.

The Board is pleased to announce the appointment of David Collins as CFO, effective as at todays date. David is a Chartered Accountant and brings over 20 years of experience in senior finance and capital markets roles across a range of leading institutions including EY, Morgan Stanley, Och-Ziff Capital (now Sculptor Capital) and Prudential plc. David also brings considerable experience of the legal finance industry having previously been CFO of Vannin Capital, a leading litigation funder that was acquired by Fortress Investment Group in 2019. Since early 2024 David has been acting as a financial advisor to LCM and knows the business and the legal finance industry well. David will not initially be a member of the Board, but, is considered a Person Discharging Managerial Responsibilities (“PDMR”). David is however expected to join LCM’s board in due course.

Mary Gangemi will step down from her position after a period of transition at which time it is expected she will resign her position on the board. A separate RNS will be issued at that time. Mary has served the Company for some four and a half years, during which time she has significantly contributed to the company’s growth and financial strategy.

Jonathan Moulds, Chairman of LCM, said; “I am delighted to announce the appointment of David Collins as our next Chief Financial Officer. David’s significant financial and capital markets experience will be of tremendous value to us as we transition our business from being a balance sheet investor to becoming a third-party asset manager with a highly attractive economic model. We are thankful for Mary’s dedicated service and the contribution she has made to our financial health and operational success.” 

Patrick Moloney, Chief Executive Officer of LCM, said; “I would like to extend my gratitude to Mary for her contribution to LCM over the past four and a half years. I wish her the very best in her future endeavours. I am also excited to welcome David to our team. He brings a wealth of experience and a strong track record in financial leadership. We see significant opportunities in our markets to drive meaningful shareholder value creation and I am sure that David will play a pivotal role in helping us capitalise on them. Our business continues to perform well and we look forward to updating our investors when we present our results for our 2024 financial year in September.”

About LCM

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is an alternative asset manager specialising in disputes financing solutions internationally, which operates two business models. The first is direct investments made from LCM's permanent balance sheet capital and the second is third party fund management. Under those two business models, LCM currently pursues three investment strategies: Single-case funding, Portfolio funding and Acquisitions of claims. LCM generates its income from both its direct investments and also performance fees through asset management.

LCM has an unparalleled track record driven by disciplined project selection and robust risk management. Currently headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.

www.lcmfinance.com

Read More

Spear’s Releases Best Litigation Funders Ranking for HNW Individuals

By Harry Moran |

Whilst most coverage of third-party legal funding focuses on high profile disputes, from large-scale class actions to complex international arbitration proceedings, the services provided by litigation funders are equally highly valued by those wealthy individuals who may find themselves embroiled in costly legal cases.

The wealth management and luxury lifestyle magazine Spear’s has released its ranking of the best litigation funding providers for high-net-worth (HNW) individuals in the UK, covering those providers who support disputes ranging from divorces to large corporate cases. Spear’s Head of Research, Ian Douglas highlighted that these litigation funders offer HNW couples “the vital financial support they need to access the legal system on an equal footing”, and “can empower clients to secure a fair settlement in an efficient and cost-effective manner.”

The complete list of Spear’s litigation funding index is as follows:

  • Katie Alexiou, Level
  • Christopher Bogart, Burford Capital
  • John Byrne, Therium
  • Alex Cooke, Schneider Financial Solutions
  • Susan Dunn, Harbour Litigation Funding
  • Steven Friel, Woodsford
  • Camilla Funari-Sherman, Rhea Family Finance
  • Alex Hulbert, Schneider Financial Solutions
  • Mark King, Harbour Litigation Funding
  • Ellora MacPherson, Harbour Litigation Funding
  • Neil Purslow, Therium
  • George Williamson, Level

Among these ranked individuals, Spear’s highlighted the following four providers as ‘names to know’: Katie Alexiou (Level), Ellora MacPherson (Harbour), Camilla Funari-Sherman (Rhea Family Finance), and Alex Cooke (Schneider).

Spear’s Research Unit selects and ranks the providers in its index through a combination of detailed market research by interviewing industry participants, soliciting information from candidates for ranking, and employing a proprietary weighted scoring system to evaluate the providers’ practices.

Backed by Funders, Provenio Litigation Reaches £1 Billion in Litigation Instructions

By Harry Moran |

An announcement from Provenio Litigation revealed that the boutique litigation firm has reached £1 billion in litigation instructions only five years after it launched in 2019. The firm, which was founded by a team of senior litigation lawyers from DLA Piper, has grown the business to expand its services across different areas of litigation and into new jurisdictions, backed by partnerships with third-party funders.

Mark Goodwin, founder and managing partner of Provenio, said that despite the difficulties faced by founding the firm shortly before the Covid pandemic, the ability “to attract business litigation instructions with a combined value of £1 billion shows how far we have come over the last five years.” Goodwin noted that this growth means the firm is now involved in cases across Europe, North America, South America, and the Middle East. 

Explaining the success of Provenio’s growth strategy, Goodwin said that this has been achieved “by attracting high value instructions, breaking into new areas of work and growing the business with a number of our high value cases being supported by the leading litigation funders.” The firm has also broadened its services with the launch earlier this year of Optimise, Provenio’s own insolvency litigation financing solution, which offers support to insolvency practitioners pursuing litigation against directors and third parties.

Opt-Out Claim Brought Against Valve for Alleged Breaches of Competition Law

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported in October of last year, Milberg London had previously announced that it had secured litigation funding from Bench Walk Advisors to bring a claim against Valve Corporation, one of the world’s largest gaming companies.

An article from CDR covers the news that this claim has now been formally brought against Steam, the games marketplace owned by Valve, over allegations that it breached UK competition law resulting in consumers being overcharged for purchases from the video game distributor. The opt-out claim was filed last week in the Competition Appeal Tribunal by Vicki Shotbolt, founder of the online safety advocacy group Parent Zone, and is being brought on behalf of up to 14 million UK consumers. The total value of the claim is estimated to reach £656 million, with the affected consumers potentially entitled to compensation of £22 to £44 if the claim is successful.

At the heart of the claim being brought against Steam, is the allegation that its use of a ‘price parity’ condition on game developers results in the end-consumer being charged an excessive price on games. This is because price parity prevents developers from selling the title at a lower price through other distributors, which combined with Steam’s 30% commission on all sales means that consumers are forced to pay an inflated price.

Shotbolt says that the claim aims to hold Valve “to account for breaking the law”, arguing that the company must be stopped from “abusing its dominant position to force publishers to sign up to illegal trading terms and tying consumers in and charging excessive prices.” 

Milberg London are acting for the proposed class, with representation by Robert Palmer KC, Julian Gregory and Will Perry of Monckton Chambers. As aforementioned, third-party funding has been secured from Bench Walk Advisors.

Natasha Pearman, partner at Milberg London, describes Valve’s monopolistic behaviour as part of its “stranglehold on the PC gaming market”, and that the Steam platform “has essentially taken away normal competition by introducing this price parity provision, so there’s no ability for real competition to thrive or emerge on alternative distribution channels.” For more information about the opt-out claim, visit the Steam You Owe Us website.

NORTHWALL CAPITAL RAISES MORE THAN €640M FOR EUROPEAN OPPORTUNITIES STRATEGY

By Harry Moran |

NorthWall Capital (“NorthWall”), a leading credit investment firm delivering private capital solutions to counterparties in Western Europe, today announces the final close of its flagship NorthWall European Opportunities Fund II and associated vehicles (“NWEOF II” or “the Fund”), attracting more than €640m in investor commitments.

The Fund and associated vehicles surpassed the €500m target, receiving strong support from new and existing global institutional investors and more than doubling the size of its predecessor, NorthWall European Opportunities Fund I (“NWEOF I”).

NorthWall’s European Opportunities strategy, established at the firm’s inception in 2017, invests across the broad opportunity set in European opportunistic private credit by delivering scalable private capital solutions to counterparties in Western Europe. NorthWall’s systematic sourcing approach, coupled with a focus on creating bespoke funding solutions, enables the firm to structure opportunities that deliver strong downside protection while targeting uncorrelated returns. The strategy also makes tactical allocations to areas of dislocation and has successfully participated in the dislocation in asset-backed opportunities. 

Prior to the final closing, NWEOF II was already substantially deployed, having committed c. 60% of its capital to 14 transactions across five countries in Western Europe.

The Fund attracted capital commitments from a global base of institutional investors, consisting of pension funds, insurance companies, large institutional single and multi-family offices and private banks from across Europe, North America and APAC. The Fund received strong support from a large US-based consultant and an Australian superannuation fund.

The firm’s principals have been investing in European private credit for nearly 20 years, and the NorthWall team has deployed over €1.0bn in the European Opportunistic Credit strategy to date. In addition to the flagship funds, the firm has extensive expertise in legal assets, asset-backed and senior lending opportunities. 

Fabian Chrobog, Founder & Chief Investment Officer of NorthWall Capital, said: “We are honoured by the success of the fundraise for NWEOF II and would like to thank our existing and new investors globally for their partnership. We remain committed to delivering scalable investment opportunities that generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for our investors while also serving as a reliable partner to our counterparties. We continue to observe one of the most compelling opportunity sets in European credit in recent history and will continue to thoughtfully scale NorthWall in a way that allows us to lean into areas of dislocation. I also wanted to congratulate and thank the NorthWall team that has been working tirelessly to deliver the best outcomes for our stakeholders.”

About NorthWall Capital

NorthWall Capital is a London-based credit investment firm, delivering private capital solutions to counterparties in Western Europe. The firm manages €1.5bn of AUM in long dated funds on behalf of global institutional investors, seeking to capture compelling risk-adjusted returns from Western European credit markets.

For more information, please visit www.northwallcap.com.

Read More

JBSL Appoints Jonathan Weitz as Managing Director and Head of Advisory Services

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, JBSL announced the appointment of Jonathan Weitz as Managing Director and Head of JBSL Advisory Services. 

Weitz joins the JBSL team having most recently served for the past three years as a Vice President at Evercore’s financial services advisory group. Weitz’ brings nearly a decade of experience in the financial services industry, including over six years at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods (KBW), where he held the position of Investment Banking Vice President.

In the announcement, JBSL stated that Weitz’s experience and expertise “will be invaluable to our law firm clients, corporate clients and our coinvestors, in all aspects of balance sheet and legal asset maximization.” His role as head of the company’s advisory services will see Weitz lead JBSL’s support for their clients in “identification of dormant legal assets, capital structuring, strategic acquisition/sales of dockets and law firms, and succession planning.”

$50M Partnership Between Tribeca Capital and Nera Capital

By Harry Moran |

With the global litigation finance market largely dominated by those long-established funders who have already planted significant footholds in the major jurisdictions, upstart funders must look for creative ways to grow their businesses at home and abroad. This has once again been demonstrated by the announcement of a partnership between two litigation finance companies, one based in California and the other in Dublin. 

An article in Alternative Credit Investor covers the news that Tribeca Capital is establishing a new division focused on antitrust claims, following the agreement of a new funding facility with Nera Capital. The $50 million in capital represents a significant partnership between the two litigation finance companies, with Tribeca looking to fund claims which target anti-competitive and monopolistic activities by corporations.

Aisling Byrne, director at Nera Capital, said that partnering with Tribeca “underscores the dedication of our exceptional team and reaffirms our commitment to making a positive impact globally, through the responsible use of litigation finance.” Byrne explained that this partnership supports the company’s growth plan in the United States, and said that allying with Tribeca “not only strengthens our market position but also aligns perfectly with our core values of innovation and integrity.”

Rory Donadio, founder and chief executive of Tribeca Capital, highlighted that “Commercial litigation funding plays a crucial role in ensuring the smooth progression of legal proceedings by covering essential expenses.” He went on to add that the provision of third-party funding to claimants “serves as a valuable financial tool in facilitating smoother case management and access to justice.”

Alexi Secures $11 Million USD Series A Funding to Accelerate AI-Powered Legal Technology Innovations

By Harry Moran |

Alexi (www.alexi.com), a Canadian legaltech company and leader in generative AI for legal research and litigation tasks, today announced an $11 million USD ($15 million CAD) Series A fundraise. The round is led by Drive Capital, with participation from existing investors including Draper Associates, and brings Alexi's total funding to over $20 million. In addition to the raise, Chris Olsen, Partner at Drive Capital, will join the company's Board of Directors.

This fresh instalment of capital comes less than a year after Alexi's release of their Instant Memos, Arguments and Chat capabilities. The funding will immediately support hiring across engineering, product development, brand and design, legal, and business development teams to help Alexi continue to innovate and scale its technology. It will also enable Alexi to meet increasing demand from law firms to incorporate an array of AI-powered litigation tools into their businesses and accelerate upcoming releases across North America and other jurisdictions.

"We evaluate over 6,000 companies a year, most of which position themselves as an 'AI company.' Alexi is one of the very few examples, however, of using AI to solve a business problem," said Chris Olsen, Co-Founder and Partner at Drive Capital. "Lawyers who use Alexi run more successful law practices. It is only a matter of time until attorneys all over the world are using Alexi to be better lawyers."

Alexi is a pioneer in generative AI for litigation teams. Their platform enables legal professionals to generate high-quality legal memos, identify pertinent legal issues or arguments to achieve desired outcomes and perform AI-powered routine litigation tasks-all within a single platform. The company's ultimate mission is to empower legal teams with artificial intelligence, breaking down barriers to knowledge and enabling justice for all.

"The rate of innovation happening at Alexi is truly astounding. Instead of trying to predict the future, we're building it," said Mark Doble, CEO of Alexi. "This capital further enables us to build incredible value into our products and empower our customers to better serve their clients."

Alexi is experiencing impressive growth, with recent user activity increasing by 15-20% each month. Currently, thousands of litigators across the U.S. and Canada rely on Alexi.

About Alexi

Founded by Mark Doble and Sam Bhasin, Alexi's proprietary AI-powered platform equips litigators with core legal skills. Designed to streamline the legal research process and assist with routine litigation tasks, Alexi saves time and enhances productivity for law firms. Committed to innovation and excellence, Alexi continues to lead the way in transforming access to legal knowledge. For more information, visit https://www.alexi.com or follow Alexi on LinkedIn.

About Drive Capital

Drive Capital is the most established venture capital firm at the intersection of industry and modern technology. Drive unlocks returns for limited partners by investing in market-defining companies anywhere in North America. Over the last decade, Drive grew to manage more than $2B in total assets. From insurance and manufacturing to energy, healthcare, finance and more, Drive's portfolio is full of real businesses, including DuoLingo, UDACITY and KOHO, creating real value in the real world. The result is world-class returns from the greatest emerging market in the world - America. Drive is proudly headquartered in Columbus, Ohio - the geographic center of mass of Western GDP, but Drive also has boots on the ground in a dozen North American cities, with more to come.

Read More

Professor Andreas Stephan to File Third-Party Seller Damages Action Against Amazon In Excess of £2.5 Billion

By Harry Moran |

Professor Andreas Stephan and Geradin Partners have today announced that they have secured funding from litigation funder Innsworth for a UK opt-out competition damages claim on behalf of UK-domiciled third-party sellers against Amazon. The claim, estimated to be worth over £2.5 billion, will focus on multiple anti-competitive practices by Amazon that have harmed UK sellers and will be filed shortly in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the UK’s specialist competition court. 

Andreas Stephan, a leading competition law scholar and the Head of the University of East Anglia Law School, will bring the damages action on behalf of UK third-party sellers who have used Amazon’s platform. He has retained a team composed of Geradin Partners, Kieron Beal KC (Blackstone Chambers), Daniel Carall-Green and Hannah Bernstein (Fountain Court), and Frontier Economics. 

Amazon’s treatment of third-party sellers has come under significant scrutiny from regulators in the United Kingdom, Italy, the European Union and the United States. These regulators have identified competition concerns in relation to Amazon’s position of dominance, and conduct in the market for the supply of e-commerce marketplace services. In some cases, those regulators have imposed sanctions or required commitments from Amazon to address these concerns. Professor Stephan’s claim would be based on showing loss arising from multiple abuses of a dominant position and therefore will provide a comprehensive opportunity for sellers to obtain full compensation for harm caused by Amazon. Estimated damages are over £2.5 billion. 

Professor Stephan said: “Amazon has engaged in a variety of strategies to grow its e-commerce platform, lock sellers into it, prevent the expansion of rivals, and use that privileged position to exploit sellers that use its platform. I am bringing this litigation to give sellers in the UK the opportunity that they might not otherwise have to be compensated for all those unfair practices.” 

Founding Partner of Geradin Partners, Damien Geradin, said: “Amazon is one of the world’s largest companies. As regulators around the world are increasingly finding, Amazon has abused that position in multiple ways to prevent third-party sellers of all sizes from enjoying the benefits that flow from free and fair online commerce. This claim intends to give sellers the opportunity to seek redress for these anti-competitive practices.”

Member Spotlight: Jeff Zaino

By John Freund |

Jeffrey T. Zaino, Esq. is the Vice President of the Commercial Division of the American Arbitration Association in New York. He oversees administration of the large, complex commercial caseload, user outreach, and panel of commercial neutrals in New York. He joined the Association in 1990. Mr. Zaino is dedicated to promoting ADR methods and services.

His professional affiliations include the American Bar Association (Dispute Resolution, Litigation, and Business Law Sections), Connecticut Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar Association, New York State Bar Association (Dispute Resolution Section - Executive Committee Member and Chair of the Blog Committee; Commercial & Federal Litigation Section, Chair of the Arbitration and ADR Committee), New York City Bar Association (Member of the Arbitration Committee and Affiliate Member of the ADR Committee), Board of Advisors of the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, New York Law School ADR Advisory Committee, American Bankruptcy Institute, and Westchester County Bar Association.

He has also written and published extensively on the topics of election reform and ADR, including several podcasts with the ABA, TalksOnLaw, and Corporate Counsel Business, and has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Bloomberg to discuss national election reform efforts and the Help America Vote Act.  He was deemed a 2018 Alternative Dispute Resolution Champion by the National Law Journal and received awards for his ADR work from the National Academy of Arbitrators, Region 2 and Long Island Labor and Employment Relations Association, New York State Bar Association (Commercial and Federal Litigation and Dispute Resolution Sections).

Company Name and Description: The not-for-profit American Arbitration Association® (AAA®)-International Centre for Dispute Resolution® (ICDR®) is the largest private global provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services in the world.

With that comes enormous responsibility, which the AAA-ICDR® embraces. Its work lessens the load of a tremendously overburdened court system. Its efforts ease the financial hardships of those shattered by natural disasters. The foundation it established supports access to justice for all. 

The AAA-ICDR has a core dedication to service and particularly to education. It would be gratifying to focus on teaching people to stay out of disputes; however, since that is not a realistic objective in today’s world, the AAA-ICDR provides fair, rational, faster, and less adversarial means to handle the disputes that inevitably arise. 

Contrary to a common misperception, arbitration is confidential—not secretive. Parties are free to talk about their cases; it is the AAA-ICDR and the arbitrators who are bound to keeping parties’ confidences, similar to a judge and jury. 

Company Website: www.adr.org

Year Founded:  1926

Headquarters:  NYC

Area of Focus:  Commercial, Construction, Consumer, Employment, Government, International, and Labor

Member Quote: I look forward to working with the members of the Legal Funding Journal to collaborate on various efforts, including the promotion of arbitration and mediation.

Read More

Nevada’s Proposed Contingency Fee Cap May Create Opportunities for Funders

By Harry Moran |

When looking at legislative and regulatory developments impacting litigation funders, we must commonly look at those measures specifically targeting third-party funding around issues such as disclosure and transparency. However, a proposition being brought forward in Nevada to limit contingency fees is being highlighted as a rule change that may benefit funders who will be able to take advantage of smaller law firms’ need for capital.

Reporting by Legal Newsline looks at a proposed law change in Nevada which would cap lawyer contingency fees at 20%, with legal analysts expressing concerns about the effect this might have on the state’s litigation regime. Proposition 22 has garnered huge support from Uber, with the rideshare company having spent $4 million in lobbying to back the rule change through the Nevadans for Fair Recovery group. However, the measure is seeing equal opposition by the state’s trial lawyers who have formed the campaign group, Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability.

The article explains that it is Nevada’s business community who are stuck in the middle of this debate, with concerns that this 20% cap could increase the power and influence of third-party litigation funders in the state. Samir Parikh, professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, explained that Proposition 22 could benefit funders who support upstart “hungry law firms” and would need the third-party funding in place of higher returns from contingency fees.