John Freund's Posts

2907 Articles

Omni Bridgeway Accuses Apple of “Blatant Attempt to Arbitrage the Courts”

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ recently covered, the world of patent litigation funding has yet again ignited a high-profile rift between a global corporation and a litigation funder, with Apple looking to compel Omni Bridgeway to answer its subpoena. This ongoing dispute shows no signs of cooling off as the funder has now filed a stout opposition to Apple’s request for the court to compel compliance with the subpoena, which Omni Bridgeway says “fails on all counts.”

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the latest developments in the fight between Apple and Omni Bridgeway over the former’s attempt to subpoena the funder for information around its supposed involvement in a patent infringement case. On Monday, Omni Bridgeway filed its opposition to the Apple’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, in which it argued that rather trying to resolve the two parties’ differences over discovery, “Apple has rushed to compel non-party Omni to engage  in  burdensome  discovery  efforts  based  on  Apple’s  unfounded  speculation  that Omni “should have” or “likely” engaged in actions Apple deems relevant.”

In a filing that spans over 20 pages, Omni Bridgeway argued that “in the seven months since it issued a subpoena to Omni, Apple has refused to explain the relevance of the discovery it seeks.” The funder accused Apple of “a blatant attempt to arbitrage the courts,  avoid  addressing  the  question  of  relevance  before  the  trial  court,  and  apply  the  actual  facts  and  binding  authority  of  the underlying litigation.”

The fiery response to Apple’s motion included claims that the company’s attempts were “futile” and that it had “cherry-picked quotes from factually and legally distinct cases” to support its arguments. 

Omni Bridgeway’s full opposition to the motion to compel can be read here.

Dr. Stephan Klebes Joins Deminor’s Hamburg Team To Expand Its Leading Position In The German Litigation Funding Market

By Harry Moran |

Deminor welcomes Dr. Stephan Klebes to the Hamburg team to expand its leading position in the German litigation funding market

Dr. Stephan Klebes adds experience and expertise in complex commercial disputes, investment recovery cases and antitrust actions to the Deminor team - especially in the fields of arbitration and capital markets law.

Deminor is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Stephan Klebes as Senior Legal Counsel. With the arrival of Stephan, a further experienced litigator joins the established team of Dr. Malte Stübinger (General Counsel Germany), Patrick Rode (Senior Legal Counsel) and Tim Willing (Senior Legal Counsel).

Dr. Stübinger commented on Stephan's arrival:

“With Stephan, we are gaining a highly qualified colleague with a broad legal background who will actively support our further growth in Germany and brings the Deminor mindset with him. An excellent addition to our team that emphasises our strong commitment to the German market.”

Stephan Klebes was admitted to the German Bar in 2021 and has broad experience in litigating and advising on cross-border disputes before international arbitral tribunals and state courts, with a particular focus on general commercial disputes and investment recovery cases. Prior to joining Deminor, he was an associate with the specialised litigation law firm Quinn Emmanuel where he represented companies in various types of arbitration proceedings, as well as complex investment recovery claims before state courts.

Erik Bomans, Chief Executive Officer, added:

“I wish to echo my colleagues' sentiments by congratulating Stephan on joining Deminor’s growing Hamburg team. Stephan’s wide-ranging legal expertise is a welcome arrival, and I am confident they will complement General Counsel Dr Malte Stübinger and his fellow Senior Legal Counsels. I look forward to his contribution to Deminor and our clients as we strengthen our position as a Chambers & Partners Band 1 Ranked provider of litigation funding solutions in Germany.”

Stephan Klebes studied law and economics at the University of Mannheim (LL.B., First State Examination) and the University of Cape Town, South Africa (LL.M. in Alternative Dispute Resolution). He then obtained his doctorate at the University of Osnabrück at the chair of Prof Dr Mary-Rose McGuire on an arbitration-related topic and completed his clerkship at the Higher Regional Court of Celle.

On joining Deminor, Stephan comments:

“I am delighted to be working with Deminor to further advance the field of litigation funding in Germany and Europe. The possibility of third-party financing of litigation and arbitration still has a lot of potential. Deminor will certainly be able to further expand its leading role in the German market on the basis of its strongly value-based approach. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to contribute to this mission.”

Dr. Klebes was recognised by Best Lawyers in the category "Ones to Watch 2024" in the field of Arbitration and Mediation.

Read More

FinLegal Announces £2M in Funding from Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II

By Harry Moran |

An article in Business Live covers the announcement from Sheffield-based FinLegal that it has raised £2 million in funding from the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II (NPIF II). The legal technology company offers a platform that can be used for the class actions or high volume small claims management, utilising automation and AI to increase efficiency and reduce costs. FinLegal plans to use the new investment to expand its operations and double its workforce.

The funding from NPIF II is a result of the fund’s mission to help small and medium sized businesses in the North of England scale up their operations, with the £660m fund providing loans that range between £25,000 and £2 million, or equity investments of up to £5 million. FinLegal specifically received funds that are managed in part by NPIF II and in part by Mercia Asset Management.

Steven Shinn, founder of FinLegal, provided the following comment on the announcement:

“The claims market is ripe for a platform like ours. Many claims are run on a no-win no-fee basis and increasingly there are fee caps, so operating costs are critical. Our solution reduces costs, automates but also improves client care and makes it possible to manage claims at a scale which might otherwise not be viable. It has already been adopted by the some of the leading claims firms and this investment will enable us to accelerate our international growth.”

Chris Borrett of Mercia Ventures said: 

“FinLegal represents a new breed of AI-enabled LegalTech companies. The business has rapidly cornered a niche within the mass volume litigation market and is driving substantial productivity gains for major global law firms. Steven and his team have acquired clients across the UK, Australia and in the USA and set their sights on becoming one of the leading litigation platforms globally.”

Read More

Clio Announces US $900M Investment at US $3B Valuation to Transform the Legal Experience For All

By Harry Moran |

Clio, the global leader in legal technology, announced it has raised US $900 million, based on a US $3 billion valuation, in a Series F investment round led by New Enterprise Associates (NEA). The round also includes new partners Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Sixth Street Growth, CapitalG, and Tidemark, who join current investors TCV, JMI Equity, funds and accounts advised by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and by T. Rowe Price Investment Management, Inc., respectively, and OMERS. Marking a new era in its growth journey, Clio will continue to expand its multi-product platform, including further investments in its burgeoning AI portfolio and integrated legal payments. It will also accelerate its rapid market expansion upmarket and internationally, deepening its organic growth to more than 130 countries across the globe.

For 16 years, Clio has been at the forefront of creating innovative, cloud-based solutions tailored to the unique needs of the legal industry. Clio is the operating system for law firms, powering every aspect of the legal process. It simplifies law firm management by centralizing client intake, case management, document management, legal payments, and more. With more than 250+ legal technology software integrations, Clio is also the world’s largest legal technology platform, endorsed by more than 100 law societies and bar associations worldwide, including all 50 state bar associations in the United States.

“This historic raise was heavily oversubscribed, further demonstrating the overwhelming demand and confidence in Clio’s future,” said Jack Newton, CEO and Founder of Clio. “I’m thrilled to embark on this journey with NEA and our group of exceptional investors. The Clio operating system is the undisputed platform of the legal technology sector, engineered to not only meet but anticipate future industry demands. We are pioneering this future for our customers, driven by our mission to transform the legal experience for all. Our commitment to delivering unparalleled value propels every decision we make, and we are inspired by the massive opportunities ahead.”

Tony Florence, Co-CEO at NEA, has joined Clio’s Board of Directors. Mr. Florence commented, “Clio embodies everything NEA looks for in a growth-stage investment: an exceptional, purpose-driven team, market and product leadership, and stellar business physics. Clio is mission critical to law firms, and the company’s best-in-class retention and NPS are testaments to the team’s ability to continuously innovate, deliver immense value, and meet the dynamic needs of the legal sector. With the right foundation in place for continued market expansion and advanced AI capabilities, we believe the best is yet to come. We look forward to applying NEA’s company-building expertise to partner with Jack and the Clio team on their next phase of growth.”

Clio raised its Series E funding in April 2021, a US $110M growth equity round. Since then, Clio has grown its revenue beyond US $200M ARR and has expanded internationally to the APAC region, as well as upmarket to become the leader in mid-market cloud legal practice management software, serving more than 1,000 mid-sized firms in the United States alone. Clio’s all-in-one payments business has skyrocketed since its launch in 2022, now processing billions of dollars annually in legal-specific transactions. Additionally, Clio’s platform has been expanded to include: 

  • Clio Duo proprietary generative AI solution to help lawyers complete routine tasks, and leverage their firm analytics to run a more efficient practice; including audit log functionality for court discovery (available in 2024)
  • Clio Accounting to manage firm finances in one system of record, designed to help keep law firms compliant
  • Module for personal injury lawyers with distinct litigation needs, and procedures for medical recordkeeping, this add-on offers rapid settlement estimates for high volume case assessments
  • Clio Draft intelligent document automation and court form libraries in 50+ jurisdictions
  • Electronic court filing services available directly in Clio to streamline court interactions
  • Legal Aid and nonprofit grant billing models, eligibility calculators, and dashboards
  • Google Local Service Ads directly embedded in the Clio platform to generate, screen, and intake local leads

“While we’re immensely proud of our growth to date, the real opportunity lies ahead of us,” continued Newton. “AI is ushering in an exciting and important new era for legaltech, and Clio is leading that transformation. There’s much to accomplish for the success of our customers so they can thrive in an economy that embraces technology in every interaction.”

Clio has more than 1,100 employees located across hub locations in North America, EMEA, and APAC regions. The company is actively hiring across all areas of its business including product, R&D, sales, marketing, and customer success.

Law firms Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati served as legal counsel to Clio. William Blair acted as Clio’s exclusive financial advisor.

Read More

Leading European Finance Firm Nera Capital to Fund €1 Billion Truck Cartel Class Action

By Harry Moran |

A prominent European finance company has announced it will be funding over 25,000 claims in a €1 billion class action against truck manufacturers, who were part of a price-fixing cartel.

Nera Capital, which has offices in Manchester, Dublin and The Netherlands, is focussing exclusively on group redress claims, helping consumers and small to medium sized businesses, fight for justice against antitrust behaviour by corporates.

In 2016, the European Commission found MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, and DAF broke European Union antitrust rules by colluding on truck pricing and on passing on the costs of compliance with stricter emission rules from 1997 to 2011.

The Commission imposed a record €2.93 billion fine on the manufacturers, except MAN as it revealed the existence of the cartel. All companies acknowledged their involvement and agreed to settle the case.

Speaking about this historic class action, Nera Capital Director, Aisling Byrne, said this investment will ensure truck owners receive justice for the damage the 14-year cartel caused. "The agreements covered both medium-duty trucks and heavy-duty trucks and affected the entire European Economic Area. While the cartel stopped running in 2011, the after affect was felt by truck owners in the following years, and it is important that those affected get their chance for justice.”

Nera Capital has appointed a leading German law firm to act for the claimants in the case.

When the European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager handed down the historic fine in 2016, she said it was not acceptable that the manufacturers were part of a cartel instead of competing with each other. In 2016 she commented on the more than 30 million trucks on European roads, which accounted for around three quarters of inland transport of goods in Europe, playing a vital role for the European economy.

Ms Byrne echoed these comments and said the firm's success is built through its strong industry relationships and a passion for justice. “This is a pivotal moment for corporate accountability,” she added. “Our investment underscores our commitment to supporting small businesses and consumers who have been impacted by antitrust violations. With a strong track record of committing over £475 million, in aggregate, into claims, we are excited to offer our support to truck owners across Europe, because we believe justice should be accessible to all. Nera Capital stands firm in its mission to level the playing field against corporate misconduct. This class action is not just about compensation but also about holding accountable those who undermine fair competition."

About Nera Capital

·       Established in 2011, Nera Capital is a specialist funding provider to law firms.

·       Provides Law Firm Lend funding across diverse claim portfolios in both the Consumer and Commercial sector.

·       Headquartered in Dublin, the firm also has offices in Manchester and The Netherlands.

.     Member of European Litigation Funders Association.

.     www.neracapital.com

Read More

Nera Capital Funding Truck Cartel Claims

By Harry Moran |

The European truck cartel case has long stood out as one of the most prominent examples of litigation funders looking to support mass claims against large companies over their breaches of competition rules. The latest announcement of a funder supporting such a claim continues to demonstrate the importance of these case types.

An article in Business Mondays highlights a recent announcement from Nera Capital, a legal finance firm based in Dublin, that it will be funding over 25,000 claims as part of the truck cartel case. The claims brought against truck suppliers has been one of the most high profile class action cases in Europe, following the 2016 European Commission ruling which found MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, and DAF guilty of breaking EU antitrust rules over their co-ordination of pricing.

Aisling Byrne, director at Nera Capital, highlighted the importance of third-party funding for the claims being brought against these truck manufacturers, stating that “while the cartel stopped running in 2011, the after effect was felt by truck owners in the following years, and it is important that those affected get their chance for justice.” The article also states that Nera Capital has appointed a German law firm to provide legal representation for the claimants it is funding.

Byrne also emphasised that Nera Capital’s investment in the truck cartel case aligned with “its mission to level the playing field against corporate misconduct”, and that this case “is not just about compensation but also about holding accountable those who undermine fair competition.”

Apple and Omni Bridgeway Spar Over Venue for Subpoena Fight

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported earlier this month, the world of patent litigation funding has once again generated a high-profile dispute, as Apple pressed a court to enforce a subpoena against Omni Bridgeway over the funder’s alleged role in a patent infringement case brought against the technology giant. The legal fight continues to evolve last week, as the two parties seek to find favourable ground in a venue of their choosing.

An article in Reuters provides a recap of the events that have led up to the current standoff between Apple and Omni Bridgeway, before shedding light on the current state of affairs. At issue is the court venue following Apple’s filing of a motion to compel compliance regarding its subpoena of Omni Bridgeway for information relating to the MPH patent infringement lawsuit. The case had been assigned to the Delaware district’s chief judge, U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly, who has become a familiar name in the litigation funding world over his standing order enforcing disclosure of third-party funding in patent cases. 

Unsurprisingly, Omni Bridgeway filed a motion to transfer the matter to the Northern District of California, stating that this court is the venue which “issued the subject subpoena and that is presiding over the underlying litigation’. The motion argued that this transfer “promotes judicial economy and prevents the risk of inconsistent rulings”, and went on to point out that “Litigating this issue in California is not inconvenient for Apple, a California corporation, with California lawyers party to the underlying California litigation.”

In response, Apple’s lawyers responded to the motion to transfer in a letter to Chief Judge Connolly, “injects unnecessary delay into the briefing, and will likely delay resolution of Apple’s motion to compel.”

Omni Bridgeway’s motion to transfer can be read here. Apple’s letter responding to the motion can be read here.

High Insolvency Rates and Case Backlogs Drive Growth of Legal Funding in India

By Harry Moran |

Whilst the majority of coverage on third-party legal funding tends to focus on established jurisdictions like Australia, the UK and US, one of the countries showing signs of life for the funding sector is India.

An article in Economic Times looks at the rise of litigation funders in India and explores how this niche but growing market has seen startup funders focus on arbitration and insolvency disputes as an area to establish a market foothold. The article highlights nationwide data that shows ‘a total of 7,567 companies across sectors were brought into administration until March end’ and that ‘45 million cases are pending in courts across the country, including about six million cases in 25 high courts and 83,800 cases in the Supreme Court.’

Speaking with top executives at funders and leading experts from Indian law firms, the Economic Times article examines how these issues within the legal system, combined with the current economic climate, have created opportunities for these funders to provide much-needed capital to alleviate the backlog of cases waiting in the courts.

Kundan Shahi, CEO of LegalPay, offered some insights into the funder’s current business strategy and explained that whilst they are largely focused on plaintiff-side funding, they “have also started to fund defendants in certain cases.” As for the underlying business fundamentals of LegalPay’s investment model, Shahi said, “We are expecting a maximum timeline of 36 months to recover our investments and an average IRR (internal rate of return) of 22-27%, with an average return of 12-15%, on a case-to-case basis.”

Outside of traditional litigation funders, there are companies like Mumbai-based SingleDebt, who provide legal advisory services to those embroiled in disputes with creditors. SingleDebt’s founder Harish Parmar, illustrated how the company assists its clients “through negotiation and mediation with creditors,” but for situations where litigation is unavoidable SingleDebt will “explore TPLF (third-party litigation funding) options to ease the financial burden on our clients.” Parmar goes on to explain that these funders can still provide significant value to their clients, by enabling them “to pursue their claims without depleting their resources.”

Litigation Lending Services Announces a New $35million Credit Facility 

By Harry Moran |

Litigation Lending Services (LLS), a pioneering force in the litigation funding industry for over 25 years, proudly announces the completion of a strategic $35 million credit facility with a leading Australian based global alternative asset manager. This credit facility further bolsters the Company's robust financial structure in tandem with its existing fund and balance sheet. 

Known for its commitment to social impact investment alongside handling insolvency and commercial and class action claims, LLS continues its mission to support those in their legal battles while making a positive difference in the community. 

As demonstrated by the recent announcement of the $180.4m settlement in the Stolen Wages Western Australia class action, LLS’s strategic approach to litigation financing combines rigorous case evaluation with a passion for driving positive societal change, making it an attractive opportunity for investors seeking both financial returns and meaningful contributions to the community. 

"We are thrilled to have successfully secured a new finance partnership, reinforcing our financial stability and positioning us for continued growth and impact," stated Chair Shaun Bonétt. “This not only strengthens our ability to support meritorious cases but also reinforces our belief that everyone deserves fair access to legal recourse, regardless of their financial situation.” 

With an impressive track record of fostering access to justice, Litigation Lending Services remains at the forefront of the industry. As LLS continues to celebrate its 25th anniversary, the funding further ensures that the Company is well positioned to continue its vital work providing crucial support to those who might otherwise lack access to the legal system. 

For more information about Litigation Lending Services, please visit https://litigationlending.com.au or contact:

Susan Wynne
Chief Executive Officer (Acting)
Litigation Lending Services
02 90519990
swynne@litlend.com.au

About Litigation Lending Services 

Litigation Lending Services is (LLS) a leading litigation funder with 25 years of experience in supporting insolvency, commercial claims and class actions with a key focus on funding social impact litigation. With a strong financial foundation and a commitment to justice, LLS empowers claimants to pursue meritorious cases, driving both financial and societal benefits.

Read More

LCM – Trading Update for 2024 Financial Year 

By Harry Moran |

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions internationally, is pleased to provide an update on its business for the 2024 financial year ended 30 June 2024.

We are pleased to report another successful year with eight investments concluding in the period generating realisations for LCM, inclusive of performance fees, totalling AUD$56.0m.  This is compared to LCM’s invested capital of AUD$23.8m, representing a multiple on invested capital (MOIC) of 2.4x. This performance aligns with our long-term track record of an average MOIC of 2.7x from investments concluded within the last 13 years, and underscores the successful execution of our strategy.  

Moreover, we have made a strong start to our 2025 financial year.  Shortly after the 2024 financial year end, a single case investment concluded generating realizations for LCM of at least AUD$12.5m, including performance fees, compared to LCM’s invested capital of AUD$1.5m, representing a MOIC of 8.3x. 

PeriodRealisations (AUD$m)Invested Capital (AUD$m)MOIC multiple
H128.48.83.2x
H227.615.01.8x
FY2456.023.82.4x
Post Period end12.51.58.3x

The average duration of cases concluded in FY24 was 45 months - slightly longer than our general expectation of 36-42 months, which remains unchanged.  This largely reflects the COVID related delays that we have previously communicated which impacted several of the investments that concluded in the period.  Importantly, elongated time has not adversely impacted on investment performance. 

We continue to invest in what we believe are the highest quality legal claims, collaborating with leading law firms and barristers in our respective markets.  We have seen high demand for our capital in the second half of the year and expect to report New Commitments for FY24 in excess of AUD$250m (FY23: AUD$176m). It remains our key strategic priority to continue to grow New Commitments, and thus ensure LCM achieves additional financial scale.

Our current portfolio of investments, both direct investments that are entirely funded via our own balance sheet and those in which we are co-invested alongside our managed external funds, continue to perform in line with our expectations.  

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: “The performance of our concluded investments in our 2024 financial year highlights the strength and effectiveness of our investment strategy. Through our rigorous investment process, we have assembled a high-quality portfolio of uncorrelated legal finance assets that are positioned to deliver attractive future aggregate investment performance. Given our access to capital, further growing New Commitments remains our key strategic priority and we are well on track. We see significant upside potential here. 

“We look forward to updating our investors on our strategic progress with our full-year results presentation on

19 September and are excited about our future opportunities.” 

Below is a brief summary of selected investments that concluded in the second half of our 2024 financial year. 

Binding Settlement reached  - Direct balance sheet Investment

A successful outcome in a dispute investment which forms part of LCMs portfolio of 100% direct investments has been achieved. The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and included two levels of appeal at which LCM’s funded party was successful at each level.  A binding settlement deed has been executed by the parties resulting in the realisation of LCM’s investment. The investment is one of four legacy disputes held at cost within our financial statements.  Details of the returns are highlighted below:

AUD$mInvestment performance
Invested capital 2.8
Investment return9.2
Total revenue12.0
MOIC4.3x

Binding Settlement reached - Direct balance sheet Investment

A further successful outcome was achieved with respect to a portfolio of insolvency claims related to the failure of an Australian listed construction company. A binding settlement deed was executed by the parties resulting in the realisation of LCM’s investment. The investment also forms part of LCMs portfolio of 100% direct investments. Details of the returns are highlighted below:

AUD$mInvestment performance
Invested capital 2.8
Investment return7.4
Total revenue10.3
MOIC3.7x

Furthermore, below is a summary of the investment that concluded shortly after our financial year end. 

Bilateral Investment Treaty - Fund I Investment

LCM funded a claim advanced in respect of a breach of a bilateral investment treaty and brought under the International Centre For Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention. The Tribunal issued an award in July 2023 in favour of LCM’s funded party for USD$76.7m plus interest and costs.  The Respondent sought to challenge the award, but the parties have now reached a settlement in advance of the annulment hearing. The terms of the settlement are confidential. 

The claim forms part of LCM’s managed Global Alternative Returns Fund (“Fund I”) and was funded directly from LCM’s balance sheet (25%) and Fund I investors (75%). Details of the returns are highlighted below:

AUD$mInvestment performanceLCM performance metricsFund I performance metrics
Invested capital 5.91.54.4
Investment return23.35.817.5
Total revenue29.27.321.9
MOIC on investment 5.05.05.0
Performance fee*-5.2(5.2)
Gross profit23.311.012.3
MOIC inclusive of performance fees5.0x8.3x3.8x

*The investment returns are subject to change based on the prevailing FX rate and timing of distribution 

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 revenue 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

Legal-Bay Pre-Settlement Funding Announces Funding for Fireworks Injuries and Building Explosions

By Harry Moran |

Legal-Bay LLC, the premier Pre Settlement Funding Company, reports that they are seeing an uptick in lawsuits against negligent pyrotechnicians and residential homeowners in the wake of the 4th of July holiday. Fireworks injuries and property damages join the escalating lawsuits that have been filed due to building explosions at gas stations, chemical plants, and oil refineries, falling under such categories as worker's comp, premises liability, personal injury, wrongful death, and beyond.  

Explosion lawsuits are filed more often than one would think. Whether in a place of business or a residential property, danger lurks for victims of others' negligence. Accidental gas leaks or faulty propane tanks are probably the most well-known type of house or building explosion, but sometimes, negligent installation by inexperienced workers or business owners looking to cut corners can lead to disaster. Likewise, if a person is injured or their property is damaged by fireworks—whether from a professional show or a neighbor's backyard—they are entitled to compensation.

Explosion payouts obviously vary depending on the severity of the damage caused and extent of injuries. Just last year, for example, a New Jersey man who suffered severe burns from an explosion while working on an electrical panel in 2019 sued his employer for gross negligence. The man was instructed to work on the electric panel even though he was not a licensed electrician. The resulting explosion inflicted burns over half of his body, requiring over 100 surgeries and a lifetime of future care. He was awarded $28MM for pain, suffering, and loss of ability to earn a salary.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Extreme explosions can result in chemical burns, broken bones, and sometimes even death, not to mention the environmental impact and property damage that can occur. Legal Bay stands at the ready to assist victims of any type of explosion get the money they have coming to them."If you or a loved one was seriously injured or killed in an explosion, you may have grounds for a lawsuit. To apply for a cash advance lawsuit loan from your anticipated lawsuit settlement, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case. 

Read More

ALFA Welcomes Shine Lawyers as Newest Associate Member

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA) announced that it is welcoming Shine Lawyers as its newest Associate Member. Shine Lawyers becomes the 13th Associate Member of ALFA, following the inclusion of law firm Mackay Chapman earlier this month.

Shine Lawyers has been involved in some of the most prominent class action cases in Australia, with recent examples including the Northern Territory Stolen Generation and PFAS Contamination class actions. The law firm was founded in 1976 by Kerry Shine in Toowoomba, Queensland, and has since grown to include over 1,000 team members across 42 locations. In 2015, Shine expanded into New Zealand for the first time with acquisition of Andrew Hooker Lawyers in Auckland, which now also includes an office in Christchurch. 

In the post, ALFA said it was looking forward to working with Vicky Antzoulatos and Craig Allsopp, Joint Heads of Class Actions, and the rest of the team at Shine Lawyers.

Saudi Billionaire Estate Dispute Highlights Challenges of Family Law Funding

By Harry Moran |

Whilst it is often the funding of large class action claims or high-profile patent infringement cases that receive the most attention, one of the most unique areas of legal funding is in the world of family disputes for high-net-worth individuals. These cases range from inheritance and estate disputes to contentious divorce proceedings, all of which come with significant financial sums at stake.

An article in Bloomberg Law provides insight into one such case of third-party funding for a family dispute, as it focuses on Therium Capital Management’s involvement in the legal fight over the estate of late Saudi billionaire, Osama Ismail Abudawood. Therium reportedly began providing litigation funding to Abudawood’s wife and daughter, Eleanor de Leon and Alaa Abudawood, who were embroiled in a legal fight with Abudawood’s brothers over the estate. 

Therium provided funding to support de Leon and her daughter’s case in 2019, with the pair looking to secure a larger portion of the estate, after they accused Abudawood’s brothers of refusing to honour the deceased’s wishes to see his wife and daughter ‘to be bought out of the company at the fair market value of their interest in his holdings.’ A global settlement between the parties was reached in 2022, but Eleanor and Alaa reportedly refused to sign the agreement, which led to delays and saw the case reach the US District Court for the Central District of California where Abudawood’s brothers successfully petitioned the court to enforce the settlement.

Bloomberg Law’s reporting suggests that despite Therium’s initial expectations of receiving a payout from a 10-figure settlement that Abudawood’s wife and daughter hoped to secure, in the end, the pair’s pay out from the settlement is valued at $88 million. This disappointingly low sum caps a difficult engagement for the litigation funder when combined with many years of delays, 18 lawsuits in three separate jurisdictions, and even one instance of their clients being fined more than $750,000 for contempt.

Robert Martorana, founder of REMO Litigation Finance, spoke with Bloomberg Law and noted that the Abudawood case shows the difficulties for third-party funders when engaging in family disputes. Martorana explained that, “funders tend to avoid cases where there’s a potential for people to act commercially unreasonable,” which is most often the case “when there are personal elements involved.”

Fenchurch Legal Appoints Nathan Patterson as Senior Financial Controller

By Harry Moran |

Fenchurch Legal a specialist provider of litigation funding for small and medium-sized UK law firms, today announced the appointment of Nathan Patterson as Senior Financial Controller.

Nathan brings a wealth of experience to the role, with a proven track record of effective financial management and strategic planning. He previously held key financial positions at a boutique advisory firm in Dubai and a Plc house-building company in the UK.

A qualified accountant and tax advisor, Nathan is both FCCA and CTA qualified. He will play a pivotal role in driving Fenchurch Legal’s continued growth and financial success.  In his new role, Nathan will head the Finance department, ensuring accurate financial reporting, strategic budgeting, and the overall financial health of the company. He will also oversee risk management, conducting thorough financial due diligence on all borrowers. His role is pivotal in maintaining Fenchurch Legal on a path of robust financial health and sustainable growth.

Nathan Patterson commented on his appointment: "I am excited to join Fenchurch Legal at such a key time in the company’s growth period and contribute to its continued success. My goal is to enhance the financial operations and support the company's growth ambitions through sound financial management and strategic planning."

Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal, said: "We are delighted to welcome Nathan to our team. His extensive experience will be of great value to us as we experience a period of rapid growth. He will help us continue to scale our operations and expand our client base. Nathan’s appointment underscores Fenchurch Legal’s commitment to building a strong and experienced team to support our growth plans."

Read More

GOP Congressman Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Litigation Funding as Potential ‘Security Problem’

By John Freund |

Despite the industry's best efforts, accusations of litigation funding being a potential security threat have yet to be quashed. Just the opposite in fact, as a letter from a GOP member of Congress to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, requests the court "consider enacting transparency rules including mandatory disclosure of outside funding in federal lawsuits."

As Bloomberg Law reports, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, wrote to Justice Roberts that, “Understanding the funding terms, sources, financial details, and potential conflicts of interest are vital to ensuring informed decision-making and guarding against perceptions of undue influence."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce introduced the concept of litigation funding being a potential security threat, as part of the Chamber's push to regulate (some might say outright ban) the practice of litigation funding. Thus far, the Chamber has seen some traction from members of the Republican party. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) recently introduced a discussion draft of legislation that aims to mandate disclosure of litigation finance agreements in civil lawsuits.

In Comer's letter, he notes specific examples where he claims that 'serious questions' are raised. Those being a lawsuit against PG&E Corp., funded by Apollo Global Management and Centerbridge Partners, as well as Fortress Investment Group's $6.8 billion investments into litigation finance. Fortress is part-owned by the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund.

Chief Justice Roberts has yet to publicly comment on the issue. His top adviser, Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., has dismissed concerns over big money and foreign influence in funding agreements, stating that “As long as the funder doesn’t have control, I don’t think it’s gonna be a major issue for judges."

Litica becomes a member of the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA)

By Harry Moran |

Litica is pleased to announce it is now a member of the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA).

Having joined as members in June, this week marked Litica's first time at the MGAA Annual Conference. It was a full day of interesting speakers and valuable networking opportunities at the exhibition. It was good to reconnect with our peers and industry leaders, explore innovative solutions, and discuss the future of MGAs.

We’re looking forward to becoming more involved in the association as well as leveraging the resources and opportunities that being a member unlocks for our business and our people.

For more information, contact Sam Dansey.

Read More

Burford Capital Appoints KPMG LLP as Independent Auditor

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital Limited ("Burford"), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, is pleased to announce that, on July 1, 2024, the audit committee (the "Audit Committee") of Burford's board of directors (the "Board") has approved, and the Board has ratified, the appointment of KPMG LLP ("KPMG") as Burford's independent registered public accounting firm. KPMG will review Burford's consolidated financial statements for the three and nine months ending September 30, 2024 and will audit Burford's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024.

KPMG replaces Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y"), which has served as Burford's independent auditor since 2010. While Burford is not subject to traditional UK mandatory auditor rotation every ten years, Burford is nevertheless conscious of shareholder feedback about best practices in the UK market and, while it would have been disruptive to have rotated auditors during the transition to US GAAP and the addition of our New York Stock Exchange listing, with those items behind us now is an appropriate moment to abide by those best practices and move to another Big Four accounting firm.

KPMG's appointment is subject to the ratification of Burford's shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting (the "2024 EGM") to be held in due course.

Dismissal of Previous Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

On July 1, 2024, the Audit Committee has also approved, and the Board has ratified, the dismissal of E&Y as Burford's independent registered public accounting firm, effective immediately following the issuance of Burford's consolidated financial statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024.

The reports of E&Y on Burford's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles. In connection with the audits of Burford's consolidated financial statements for each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 and during the period from the end of the most recently completed fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 through July 1, 2024 (the "Interim Period"), there were no "disagreements" (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K) with E&Y on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedure which "disagreements", if not resolved to the satisfaction of E&Y, would have caused E&Y to make reference to the subject matter of the "disagreements" in connection with their report for such years. There were no "reportable events" (as described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K) during the two fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 or the Interim Period, except for certain identified material weaknesses in Burford's internal controls relating to:

  • a lack of available evidence to demonstrate the precision of management's review of certain assumptions used in the measurement of the fair value of capital provision assets as disclosed in Burford's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 28, 2024, which Burford is in the process of remediating as of the date of this announcement; and
  • the determination of Burford's approach to measure the fair value of capital provision assets in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement, as disclosed in Burford's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2022 filed with the SEC on May 16, 2023, which was remediated at December 31, 2023.

The Audit Committee discussed the "reportable events" with E&Y, and Burford has authorized E&Y to respond fully to the inquiries of KPMG, as successor auditor, concerning the subject matter of such "reportable events".

Pursuant to Item 304(a)(3) of Regulation S-K, Burford provided E&Y with a copy of the disclosures in this announcement prior to furnishing this announcement under the cover of Form 6-K to the SEC, and E&Y has furnished a letter addressed to the SEC stating that E&Y agrees with the statements set forth in this paragraph and the two immediately preceding paragraphs above. A copy of E&Y's letter, dated July 9, 2024, has been furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to the Form 6-K.

Appointment of New Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

On and effective as of July 1, 2024, KPMG was appointed as Burford's independent registered public accounting firm for the three and nine months ending September 30, 2024 and for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024. The Audit Committee approved, and the Board ratified, the appointment of KPMG, subject to the shareholder approval at the 2024 EGM. 

During Burford's two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 and the Interim Period, neither Burford nor anyone acting on its behalf has consulted KPMG regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on Burford's consolidated financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided to Burford that KPMG concluded was an important factor considered by Burford in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a "disagreement" (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K) or a "reportable event" (as described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

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.

Read More

Allia Group Appoints Seasoned Legal Strategist Justin Fitzdam as General Counsel

By Harry Moran |

Allia Group, the innovative legal finance firm exclusively specializing in healthcare insurer disputes, is excited to announce that Justin Fitzdam has been appointed as General Counsel. Mr. Fitzdam is based in Allia Group’s Nashville office.

Fitzdam has extensive in-house healthcare litigation expertise. In his 11 year tenure at HCA Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest hospital systems and healthcare service providers, he spearheaded the development of their nationwide litigation program against managed care payors. In addition, he oversaw all litigation, regulatory enforcement and compliance, investigations, and related legal issues for a substantial portfolio of HCA’s facilities and affiliates. His strong track record of successful litigation against the largest health insurance companies resulted in several of HCA’s largest judgments.

Over the course of his career, Fitzdam brings nearly 20 years of litigation, mediation, and arbitration experience across a broad range of large, complex, and highly regulated industries.He began his career in private practice at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and then Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP where he represented clients on both the plaintiff and defendant sides in all federal and state court levels, including the United States Supreme Court.

Fitzdam holds a J.D. from Cornell Law School and a B.S. in Accounting from the University of Florida.

In his new role, Fitzdam will be responsible for leading and implementing litigation strategy for Allia Group’s portfolio of litigation and will serve as the head legal advisor to the CEO and senior management. In addition, he will also define new areas of growth and oversee the underwriting of legal risks related to new business and transactions.

“We are thrilled to welcome Justin to the team,” said Eliot Listman, CEO of Allia Group. “His expertise with payor litigation in both in network and out of network cases will be indispensable. He is an ideal fit as our strategy grows to include solutions for even the largest hospital systems and physician groups in the battle against big health insurance. We are fortunate to have Justin on the team in our mission to hold payors accountable for bad behavior.”

About Allia Group:

Allia Group specializes in litigation finance solutions to improve the financial position of healthcare providers. To demand responsibility from healthcare insurers, Allia litigates and arbitrates against these payors and structures the purchase of underpaid claims and legal rights to monetize these assets, benefitting providers’ cash flow. Allia has the experience to address the needs of hospital systems, physician groups, and emergency transportation businesses. Visit www.allia.group to learn more.

Read More

Lawyers for Civil Justice Submits Letter to House Subcommittee in Support of Funding Disclosure Rules 

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported last month, a committee hearing in the US House of Representatives brought a renewed focus on the issue of disclosure and transparency in the use of third-party litigation funding. Since that hearing, the debate has continued to evolve, with advocacy groups lending their voices to the discussion, as funders and law firms try to influence the direction the legislature will take.

In a letter submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) responded to the Subcommittee’s hearing on third-party litigation finance. The letter, signed by LCJ’s president, Molly H. Craig, laid out its argument that “there are numerous compelling reasons why uniform rules requiring disclosure will benefit federal courts and parties while improving the transparency and fairness of the federal court system.”

LCJ listed the following reasons why it supported the introduction of new rules governing the disclosure of litigation funding:

  • Reduce the risk of conflicts of interest
  • Ensure that decision makers participate in court proceedings
  • Identify the actual interests of parties
  • Evaluate discovery requests and allocate costs and sanctions in accordance with the FRCP
  • Protect the interests of class action members
  • Ensure counsel represent their client’s interests, not third-party funders
  • Inform trial rulings on evidence admissibility and acceptable lines of questioning

LCJ also highlighted four proposals that it has previously put forward and continues to advocate for, which would introduce specific amendments to existing rules in order to “support or require such appropriate TPLF disclosures”. These include amendments to Rule 26 disclosure, Rule 16 disclosure, Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Disclosure, and FRCP Rule 7.1 disclosure.LCJ describes itself as “a national coalition of corporations, law firms, and defense trial-lawyer organizations that promotes excellence and fairness in the civil justice system and supports measures to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of civil cases.”

More information about LCJ can be found on its website.

Latam Advisors Director says Argentina’s President Should Negotiate a Deal for $16B YPF Judgement

By Harry Moran |

One of last year’s biggest stories of the legal funding world was the $16 billion judgement in the Argentina YPF case, standing out as a significant win for litigation funder Burford Capital. However, the pressing question since this judgement has been how Argentina’s government would deal with this mammoth sum, especially since Burford Capital has continued to demonstrate its commitment to judgement enforcement and foreign asset recovery.

An article in the Buenos Aires Times, which analyses the current state of Argentinian President Javier Milei’s government, offers a small but interesting insight into the direction that Argentina’s leader could choose to take in regards to the $16 billion judgement in the YPF case. The article highlights recent comments from Sebastián Maril, director of Latam Advisors, who suggested that the Argentine government could attempt to negotiate a deal to end the dispute with Burford Capital over the $16 billion sum, with payments made over time in return for a lower total amount paid.

Maril argues that “Argentina should start viewing international legal proceedings as assets and not liabilities”, and that the government should seek to build relationships with these companies so that “beneficiaries of foreign judgments should understand that, by helping the Republic they’ll be helping themselves.” Maril places the YPF judgement in the context of a wider pattern of Argentina already having to pay out ‘US$16.35 billion in closed and settled legal judgements since 2000’, with an additional $10.245 billion in open judgements beyond the YPF settlement.

Paper Published on the Funder’s Perspective of International Arbitration

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Francesca Mastragostino, junior associate at Bonn, Steichen and Partners, announced the publication of a paper titled ‘Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration: the Funder’s perspective’, which covers “the complex dynamics between the client and the funder during legal proceedings.” The paper, published by Club de l’arbitrage as part of Les Dossiers Du Blog De L’Arbitrage, includes an examination of the funding of these proceedings, including disclosure requirements for funders, rights and obligations, and security for costs.

In the paper, Mastragostino discusses the differences in disclosure rules between jurisdictions, highlighting the compulsory requirements in Hong Kong and Singapore versus the lack of any mandatory disclosure in Luxembourg. Mastragostino notes that despite the continuing conflict between advocates and critiques of the legal funding industry, “there might be indeed potential benefits to such transparency”, such as the possibility for this transparency to enhance the image of a claim as meritorious enough to have attracted funding.

Mastragostino also examines the nature of the relationship between a client and their funder, explaining that a positive model for this relationship is “characterised by continuing monitoring and dialogue.” She also highlights the value, beyond pure financial resources, that a funder can bring to these proceedings through the expertise and experience that litigation finance professionals can bring having worked on similar cases in the past.

The full paper can be found on the Club de l’arbitrage website.

SdK Offers Litigation Finance to Enforce Claims for Additional Payment for Former Shareholders of STADA Arzneimittel AG

By Harry Moran |

Former shareholders of STADA Arzneimittel AG who tendered their Stada shares as part of the takeover offer by Nidda Healthcare Holding AG in August or September 2017 are entitled to an additional payment of €8.15 per share. This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice in May 2023. Since Nidda Healthcare Holding AG refuses to make a voluntary additional payment to all former STADA shareholders, SdK Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger e.V. is offering litigation financing for a legal claim without any cost risk to the affected former STADA shareholders.

On July 19, 2017, Nidda Healthcare Holding AG, a joint venture of the international financial investors Bain Capital and Cinven Partners, submitted a voluntary public takeover offer to the shareholders of STADA Arzneimittel AG to acquire their shares at a price of € 66.25 per share. Within the acceptance period (until the end of August 16, 2017), the bidder’s offer was accepted by 63.76 % of STADA shareholders and within a further acceptance period (until September 1, 2017) by a further 0.11 % of STADA shareholders. The bidder thus achieved a tender volume, including shares held by STADA, of approx. 63.87 % of STADA’s share capital and voting rights. 

On August 30, 2017, a shareholder holding 8,265,142 shares (13.26 % of the shares and voting rights) agreed to a domination and profit and loss transfer agreement between Nidda Healthcare and STADA if the amount of the compensation under the domination and profit and loss transfer agreement is at least EUR 74.40 per STADA share. Several former shareholders of STADA, who had accepted the lower takeover offer, filed a lawsuit against the bidder demanding the difference between the offer price and the compensation under the domination and profit and loss transfer agreement of EUR 74.40. 

In two identical judgments dated 23 May 2023 (case no. II ZR 219/21 and II ZR 220/21), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in favor of two plaintiffs pursuant to sections 31 (5) and (6) WpÜG, referring to the principles of the so-called Celesio case law. In principle, all former shareholders of Stada AG who had initially exchanged their regular shares for the securities tendered for sale with ISIN DE000A2GS5A4 or for securities subsequently tendered for sale with ISIN DE000A2GS5B2 and had subsequently tendered these in the takeover offer are entitled for the payment of the difference. 

Following a request of the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority („BaFin“), the Bidder published a corresponding notice in the Federal Gazette, but pointed out that, in its view, any payment claims by former shareholders could be based on the defense of the statute of limitations. In the opinion of the Bidder, the statute of limitations generally began at the latest at the end of 2017. However, this is incorrect. The claims of the former shareholders of STADA are not yet time-barred: This is because after the courts of the 1st and 2nd instance had still rejected the claim for subsequent payment, only the BGH confirmed this claim for additional payment. The claim for additional payment is therefore not yet time-barred.

The SdK is offering affected former STADA shareholders legal cost financing to enforce their claims for additional payment. The claims can thus be enforced without any cost risk. The SdK, as the financier of the legal costs, assumes all costs of the legal proceedings in return for a profit participation of 30% of the proceeds in the event of success. For more information please contact us at info@sdk.org.The SdK will be happy to answer any questions from its affected members by e-mail at info@sdk.org or by telephone on +49 89 / 2020846-0.

Read More

CourtCorrect, Leader in Complaints AI, Completes Funding Round from Industry Veterans

By Harry Moran |

CourtCorrect, the market leader in complaints resolution with AI, is pleased to share that we have successfully completed a funding round from industry veterans to fuel our growth and product development.

CourtCorrect is an AI startup based in London, focusing on the safe deployment of artificial intelligence technologies to improve the efficiency, quality and root cause analysis of complaints resolution. We work with clients across financial services and other regulated industries and process thousands of cases every week.

Investors participating in the round include both existing and new investors such as Alain Dehaze (former CEO of Fortune 500 The Adecco Group), Philippe Verboogen (Managing Director at BlackRock and the driving force behind the Growth of eFront Solutions prior to being acquired by BlackRock for >$1bn) and Dr. David Wicki-Birchler (Head of Compliance at a Swiss Banking Group).

This further funding, coming on top of over £2m in Seed Funding raised from 20VC, Visionaries Club, Ascension VC and Concept Ventures will allow CourtCorrect to invest in its growth trajectory as clients scale their use of the platform and new firms onboard to the future of complaints resolution.

Additionally, this funding enables CourtCorrect to further invest in product development, including assisting clients with root cause analysis as we continue to position the company as the market leader for complaints resolution with AI.

Alain Dehaze had this to say about the funding round:

“We are delighted to support CourtCorrect in her growth ambitions and to build on the strong impact her clients have been seeing from AI. We are looking forward to continuing our collaboration with Ludwig and the team by providing a strategic investment as well as guidance on scaling up the sales function. Good luck to the whole team!”

Ludwig Bull had this to add following the completion of the round:

“This investment comes at the perfect time for CourtCorrect. Following tremendous growth in the last 12 months, we are looking forward to investing directly in our Go-To-Market strategy as well as continue to build out the platform in close collaboration with our clients. I’m sure that this vote of confidence in our team, product and business model will propel CourtCorrect to new heights.”

Thank you to our investors, team members and advisers who supported this investment round.

About CourtCorrect:

CourtCorrect works with clients across financial services and other regulated markets to improve the efficiency, quality and root cause analysis of complaints resolution. By leveraging the most recent advances in AI and with an expert team drawn from machine learning and financial services compliance backgrounds, CourtCorrect processes thousands of cases every week to create a win-win-win for consumers, businesses and regulators.

CourtCorrect assists clients across the resolution process, including generating letters and other correspondence, structuring and extracting key insights from documents, assessing potential outcomes against the backdrop of internal policies and regulations and identifying root causes both in individual cases and in aggregate. As a result, businesses save time, improve the quality of resolution, remediate complaints causes effectively, improve customer retention and align more closely with regulatory rules, including Consumer Duty.Please feel free to contact us at hello@courtcorrect.com or request a free trial of the platform on our website: https://platform.courtcorrect.com/signup

Read More

4 Rivers and Case Legal Media Form Strategic Alliance

By Harry Moran |

4 Rivers and Case Legal Media (“CASE”) are pleased to announce a strategic alliance to collaborate to assist law firms which operate in the mass torts space with case origination and funding. 

Law firms acting for mass tort claimants are often in the position where they require external funding to provide working capital for themselves, as well as case costs and expenses, while the claims are in progress. Law firms must therefore be properly funded so that they can pursue further actions which benefit from CASE’s acquisition and intake expertise.  4 Rivers has extensive know-how and bespoke tools which can be used to secure such finance from diverse sources of capital.  

The two firms have recognised that there will be considerable value in working with each other on projects and generally from sharing intellectual capital, and contacts in the legal and funding sectors, as well as deriving further benefits from sharing support, resources, and infrastructure.

Peter Petyt, Chief Executive Officer of 4 Rivers, said: “I am delighted that 4 Rivers and Case Legal Media will be working together to help law firms to secure the right type and amount of finance to allow them to acquire meritorious cases and run the cases with sufficient resources to give them every chance of a successful outcome.”   George Young, Founder of CASE Legal Media, said: 

“CASE Legal Media is excited for the opportunity to partner with Peter and his team.  We are always looking for ways to improve our services and add value to our law firm partners, and we think the resources provided by 4 Rivers can give our clients a unique level of market intelligence to navigate the world of litigation finance.”

About 4 Rivers

4 Rivers is a legal finance advisor and brokerage which originates claims either from claimants direct or through law firms. It has relationships in place with the major third-party funders based throughout the world, as well as multi-strategy funds, family offices, private equity funds, and private credit funds.

It also advises on law firm strategy and mergers and acquisitions in the wider legal services sector.  4 Rivers also has long established relationships with lawyers and attorneys, barristers, valuation experts, forensic accountants, e-discovery vendors, investigations companies, asset tracers, costs companies and other specialists in order to assemble the right team to enable third-party funding to be secured and/or a contingency arrangement to be negotiated.

About Case Legal Media 

CASE Legal Media helps law firms procure thousands of cases in both national mass tort and local personal injury campaigns, using the power of television, radio, and digital media together to deliver low cost and high-quality case acquisition. CASE assists clients in all aspects of client acquisition, from marketing to intake to records retrieval. They are currently active in a number of case acquisition marketing campaigns for their law firm partners, including Asbestos, Camp LeJeune, Hair Relaxer, MVA, NEC, and PFAS, amongst others. CASE has a database of approximately 4,000 law firms with whom it has had a range of contacts in the past. 

Read More

Apple Asks Delaware Court to Force Omni Bridgeway to Answer Subpoena

By Harry Moran |

The fight over disclosure and transparency around third-party funding of patent infringement litigation continues to generate high-profile cases, as one of the world’s largest technology corporations is asking a court to force a litigation funder to respond to its subpoena.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law provides an overview of a recent filing from Apple Inc., which sees the technology giant file a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena for Omni Bridgeway. Apple is asking the US District Court for the District of Delaware to force the litigation funder to answer a December 2023 subpoena, seeking information about Omni Bridgeway’s involvement in a California patent infringement suit. The original patent lawsuit was brought by MPH Technologies Oy in 2018, claiming that Apple had infringed on its patents with Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime products.

The filing of the motion to compel compliance has come after Apple says that several discussions have taken place between lawyers for the company and Omni Bridgeway, but none of these conversations have resulted in the litigation funder being willing to disclose the requested information. In a declaration in support of the motion, Hannah Cannom, an attorney at Walker Stevens Cannom who represents Apple in the patent infringement case, confirmed that the funder “has not produced any responsive documents to the Amended Subpoena nor offered any witness for a deposition.”

A letter from Omni Bridgeway, that was included as an exhibit for another declaration by one of Apple’s lawyers, shows that the funder objected to the subpoena and asserted 20 separate objections to the request. In the summary of its objections, Omni Bridgeway’s counsel stated that “the subpoena does not coherently state what information it seeks; why the information sought by the subpoena is discoverable in the underlying litigation; and why information requested by the subpoena cannot be obtained directly from a party to the underlying action.”

Neither representatives from Apple nor Omni did not respond to Bloomberg Law’s requests for comment.

CASL Funding Class Action Over Surcharges Imposed on Foreign Property Purchasers 

By Harry Moran |

Australia remains one of the top jurisdictions for litigation funders looking to engage in funding opportunities for class action claims, as demonstrated once again by CASL’s financing of case in the Federal Court which is seeking compensation for foreign persons who paid surcharges on property purchases or ownership.

An article in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) highlights an ongoing class action brought against the Victorian State Government over its imposition of stamp duty and land tax surcharges on foreign parties who purchased or own property in Victoria. The central argument of the claim is that the state government imposed at least two of these surcharges on foreign purchasers, in breach of existing Commonwealth agreements with certain countries that ensure taxes are equitable. 

The class action is seeking up to $500 million in compensation for persons who paid one of these surcharges, and is a foreign national from Finland, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, and Switzerland.

The Foreign Purchaser Surcharges class action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia earlier this year, with law firm Johnson Winter Slattery representing the claimants and litigation funder CASL supporting the case. AFR spoke with the founder of CASL, John Walker, who explained that the government “promised all these countries which they created treaties with that they’d deal with taxes in a non-discriminatory way”, and that after evaluating their options, “the only real possibility of having commercially viable compensatory proceedings commenced was in Victoria.”

Kim May, senior investment manager at CASL, also explained that whilst the case has been filed in the Federal Court, its final destination may lay elsewhere. May said that the claim contains “constitutional issues”, and that from CASL’s perspective “the place for that to be ventilated is the High Court”.For more information, visit the Foreign Purchaser Surcharges class action website.

iLA Law Firm Expands Services to Include Litigation Funding Agreements

By Harry Moran |

As the relationship between litigation funders and law firms continues to grow intertwined, we are not only seeing funders getting more involved in the ownership of law firms, but also specialist law firms looking to provide their own niche litigation funding services.

An article in Legal Futures covers the expansion of iLA into the business of litigation funding agreements, with the Poole-based law firm providing this new service offering to a range of clients from individuals to SMEs. iLA’s co-founder and chief finance officer, Luke Baldwin, explained that one aspect of the law firm’s litigation funding service includes work on matrimonial cases, providing funding of between £25,000 to £75,000 to individual clients. Other examples include funding for disputes brought by SMEs over ‘undisclosed commissions on energy contracts’, or individuals with claims relating to car finance agreements.

iLA was founded in March 2022 by Mr Baldwin and Anastasia Ttofis, with both co-founders having previously worked together on their Bournemouth-based brokerage business, Niche Specialist Finance. Since its launch, iLA has grown from servicing 13 clients in its first month to providing independent legal advice to between 600 and 700 clients. iLA’s growth has been bolstered by a series of partnerships with other solicitors, brokers and lenders, including a partnership with the specialist mortgage lender, Keystone Property Finance.

ALFA Welcomes Mackay Chapman as Newest Associate Member

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA) announced that it is welcoming Mackay Chapman as its newest Associate Member. Mackay Chapman becomes the 12th Associate Member of ALFA, following the inclusion of Litica in April of this year.

Mackay Chapman is a boutique legal and advisory firm, specialising in high-stakes regulatory, financial services and insolvency disputes. The Melbourne-based law firm was founded in 2016 by Dan Mackay and Michael Chapman, who bring 25 years of experience in complex disputes to the business.More information about Mackay Chapman can be found on its website.

Read More

Deminor Announces Settlement in Danish OW Bunker Case

By Harry Moran |

An announcement from Deminor Litigation Funding revealed that a settlement has been reached in the OW Bunker action in Demark, which Deminor funded litigation brought by a group of 20 institutional investors against the investment banks Carnegie and Morgan Stanley.

This is part of a wider group of actions originating from OW Bunker’s 2014 bankruptcy, which led to significant financial losses for both company creditors and shareholders who had invested in the company. These other cases were brought against several defendants, including OW Bunker and its former management and Board of Directors, Altor Fund II, and the aforementioned investment banks.

The settlement provides compensation for plaintiffs across the four legal actions, with a total value of approximately 645 million DKK, including legal costs. The settlement agreement requires the parties to ‘waive any further claims against each other relating to OW Bunker’. Deminor’s announcement makes clear that ‘none of the defendants have acknowledged any legal responsibility in the group of linked cases in connection with the settlement.’

Charles Demoulin, Chief Investment Officer of Deminor, said that “the settlement makes it possible for our clients to benefit from a reasonable compensation for their losses”, and that they were advising the client “to accept this solution which represents a better alternative to continuing the litigation with the resulting uncertainties.” Joeri Klein, General Counsel Netherlands and Co-head Investment Recovery of Deminor, said that the settlement had demonstrated that “in Denmark it has now proven to be possible to find a balanced solution to redress investor related claims.”

Burford German Funding Sued Over Hausfeld Ownership Stake

By Harry Moran |

The ownership or funding of law firms by litigation funders continues to be a hot topic in the world of legal funding, with models such as alternative business structures (ABS) gaining momentum in places like Arizona. However, a complaint filed by a client in Delaware reveals a falling out due to the reverse funding model, where a law firm maintained an ownership stake in the funder.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers a new lawsuit brought against Burford German Funding (BGF), an affiliate of Burford Capital, by a client who claims that the funder failed to disclose the fact that BGF was partly owned by the same law firm it nominated to lead the client’s antitrust cases. Financialright Claims GMBH (FRC) alleges that when it negotiated the funding agreement with BGF for its antitrust litigation against the trucks cartel, it had no knowledge “that Hausfeld  was  also  a  part  owner  of  BGF  through  an  entity  called German Litigation Solutions LLC (“GLS”) or that one of the lead German partners at Hausfeld responsible for the firm’s representation of FRC had a personal stake.”

The complaint, filed by FRC in the Delaware Superior Court, explains that as Hausfeld is part-owner of BGF, and the funding agreement “provides for a share of FRC’s recoveries in the Trucks Litigations to flow to FRC’s lawyers”, this constitutes a contingency fee arrangement which are illegal under German law.  FRC had filed a lawsuit against Hausfeld in a German court and then applied for discovery from BGF, Burford and GLS in the Delaware District Court, which was followed by an assertion by these parties that the application for discovery “is subject to mandatory arbitration” under the terms of the funding agreement.

FRC argues that “as  a  direct  result  of  BGF’s  fraud  on  FRC,  FRC  did  agree  to  the Arbitration Agreement that—according to BGF—subsumes disputes between FRC and GLS.” However, FRC claims that it “would  never  have  agreed  to  an  arbitration  clause  requiring  it  to arbitrate claims against Hausfeld”, were it not for the concealment of Hausfeld’s ownership stake in BGF. FRC is therefore asking the Superior Court to declare that “BGF fraudulently induced  FRC  into  agreeing  to  the  Arbitration  Agreement”, and that the agreement should be declared both invalid and unenforceable.

Lisa Sharrow, spokesperson at Hausfeld LLP, provided the following statement:  “The US-based Hausfeld LLP and the UK-based Hausfeld & Co LLP hold indirect economic minority interests in Burford German Funding. These are separate legal entities from Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte LLP that do not practice law in Germany. Burford German Funding was of course developed and set up in a way that was fully compliant with all relevant regulations.”

David Helfenbein, spokesperson at Burford, also provided a response to Bloomberg via email: “There is a dispute in Germany between a client Burford has funded and its lawyers. Burford is not a party to that dispute and its outcome has no impact on us. This Delaware proceeding is a third-party discovery request to Burford for material for the German litigation, which Burford believes should be adjudicated in arbitration and not in the Delaware courts.”

The full complaint filed by FRC can be read here.

Read More