Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3005 Articles

More Than 100 Companies Sign Letter Urging Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Rule for Federal Courts Ahead of October Judicial Rules Meeting

By Harry Moran |

In the most significant demonstration of concern for secretive third-party litigation funding (TPLF) to date, 124 companies, including industry leaders in healthcare, technology, financial services, insurance, energy, transportation, automotive and other sectors today sent a letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules urging creation of a new rule that would require a uniform process for the disclosure of TPLF in federal cases nationwide. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will meet on October 10 and plans to discuss whether to move ahead with the development of a new rule addressing TPLF.

The letter, organized by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ), comes at a time when TPLF has grown into a 15 billion dollar industry and invests funding in an increasing number of cases which, in turn, has triggered a growing number of requests from litigants asking courts to order the disclosure of funding agreements in their cases. The letter contends that courts are responding to these requests with a “variety of approaches and inconsistent practices [that] is creating a fragmented and incoherent procedural landscape in the federal courts.” It states that a rule is “particularly needed to supersede the misplaced reliance on ex parte conversations; ex parte communications are strongly disfavored by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges because they are both ineffective in educating courts and highly unfair to the parties who are excluded.”

Reflecting the growing concern with undisclosed TPLF and its impact on the justice system, LCJ and the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) submitted a separate detailed comment letter to the Advisory Committee that also advocates for a “simple and predictable rule for TPLF disclosure.”

Alex Dahl, LCJ’s General Counsel said: “The Advisory Committee should propose a straightforward, uniform rule for TPLF disclosure. Absent such a rule, the continued uncertainty and court-endorsed secrecy of non-party funding will further unfairly skew federal civil litigation. The support from 124 companies reflects both the importance of a uniform disclosure rule and the urgent need for action.”

The corporate letter advances a number of additional reasons why TPLF disclosure is needed in federal courts:

Control: The letter argues that parties “cannot make informed decisions without knowing the stakeholders who control the litigation… and cannot understand the control features of a TPLF agreement without reading the agreement.” While many funding agreements state that the funder does not control the litigation strategy, companies are increasingly concerned that they use their growing financial leverage to exercise improper influence.

Procedural safeguards: The companies maintain that the safeguards embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) cannot work without disclosure of TPLF.  One example is that courts and parties today are largely unaware of and unable to address conflicts between witnesses, the court, and parties on the one hand, and non-parties on the other, when these funding agreements and the financial interests behind them remain largely secret.

Appraisal of the case: Finally, the letter reasons that the FRCP already require the disclosure of corporate insurance policies which the Advisory Committee explained in 1970 “will enable counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not speculation.” The companies maintain that this very same logic should also require the disclosure of TPLF given its growing role and impact on federal civil litigation.

Besides the corporate letter and joint comment, LCJ is intensifying its efforts to rally companies and practitioners to Ask About TPLF in their cases, and to press for a uniform federal rule to require disclosure. LCJ will be launching a new Ask About TPLF website that will serve as a hub for its new campaign later this month.

Read More

Mesh Capital Hires Augusto Delarco to Bolster Litigation Finance Practice

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Mesh Capital announced the hiring of Augusto Delarco who has joined the Brazilian firm as a Senior Associate, bringing a “solid and distinguished track record in complex litigation and innovative financial solutions” to help develop Mesh Capital’s Litigation Finance and Special Situations practices. 

The announcement highlighted the experience Delarco would bring to the team, noting that throughout his career “he has advised clients, investors, and asset managers on strategic cases and the structuring of investments involving judicial assets.”

Delarco joins Mesh Capital from Padis Mattars Lawyers where he served as an associate lawyer, having previously spent six years at Tepedino, Migliore, Berezowski and Poppa Laywers.

Mesh Capital is based out of São Paulo and specialises in special situations, legal claims and distressed assets. Within litigation finance, Mesh Capital focuses on “the acquisition, sale and structuring of legal claims, covering private, public and court-ordered credit rights.”

Delaware Court Denies Target’s Discovery Request for Funding Documents in Copyright Infringement Case

By Harry Moran |

A recent court opinion in a copyright infringement cases has once again demonstrated that judges are hesitant to force plaintiffs and their funders to hand over information that is not relevant to the claim at hand, as the judge denied the defendant’s discovery request for documents sent by the plaintiff to its litigation funder.

In an article on E-Discovery LLC, Michael Berman analyses a ruling handed down by Judge Stephanos Bibas in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in the case of Design With Friends, Inc. v. Target Corporation. Design has brought a claim of copyright infringement and breach of contract, and received funding to pursue the case from Validity Finance. As part of its defense, Target had sought documents from the funder relating to its involvement in the case, but Judge Bibas ruled that Target’s request was both “too burdensome to disclose” and was seeking “information that is attorney work product”.

Target’s broad subpoena contained five requests for information including Validity’s valuations of the lawsuit, communications between the funder and plaintiff prior to the funding agreement being signed, and information about the relationship between the two parties.

With regards to the valuations, Judge Bibas wrote that “while those documents informed an investment decision, they did so by evaluating whether a lawsuit had merit and what damages it might recover,” which in the court’s opinion constitutes “legal analysis done for a legal purpose”. He went on to say that “if the work-product doctrine did not protect these records,” then the forced disclosure of these documents “would chill lawyers from discussing a pending case frankly.”

Regarding the requests for information about the relationship between Design and Validity, Judge Bibas was clear in his opinion that these requests were disproportionately burdensome. The opinion lays out clear the clear reasoning that “Target already knows that Validity is funding the suit and that it does not need to approve a settlement”, and with this information already available “Further minutiae about Validity are hardly relevant to whether Target infringed a copyright or breached a contract years before Validity entered the picture.”The full opinion from Judge Bibas can be read here.

Burford CEO Sees Opportunities for Funding Hospital Lawsuits

By Harry Moran |

When discussing the use of litigation funding for disputes in the healthcare sector, we most often think of funders providing the financial backing for individuals or groups of patients who were victims of medical malpractice in some form. However, a statement by the leader of one of the world’s leading funders suggests that it may be hospitals themselves who could seek litigation financing.

An article in BNN Bloomberg reports on a media briefing given by Burford Capital’s CEO, Christopher Bogart, who discussed the potential opportunities for litigation funders to invest in health care lawsuits. 

Bogart said that “there is such enormous economic pressure in the health care industry that it leads to a fair bit of bad behavior and quite a significant number of disputes”, and that in this environment, “insurance companies are increasingly difficult in paying health care claims.” 

Whilst Bogart acknowledged that it is a “relatively new” trend for hospitals to access third-party legal funding, there are opportunities in situations where these hospitals can bundle individual claims into one lawsuit or arbitration to force these insurers to pay the outstanding claims. However, according to Bloomberg’s reporting, Bogart did not say whether Burford Capital has already funded this type of lawsuit brought by hospitals.

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

By John Freund |

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled "Spotlight on Insurance." The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren't able to do that as a first-time manager, but it's something we'd like to explore in the future. We're currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to 'yes.'

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I'm seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It's very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders - an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn't go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn't be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you've got a policy with an insurer and you're invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder-- all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you're not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you're not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you'll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the 'divide and rule game' with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we've been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) - things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won't be insurable in the US. But we're seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that's where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we've been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Read More

Burford Capital Marks 15-Year Anniversary with Business Data and New Legal Finance Research

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, has grown significantly since its founding in 2009. As part of ongoing recognition of the growth in legal finance and Burford’s industry leadership as it celebrates its 15th anniversary, it today shares data from its own performance and releases new research based on one-on-one phone interviews with senior lawyers at global law firms who have a front seat to growing awareness and use of legal finance by their clients and firms.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, says: “Jon Molot and I started Burford 15 years ago because of economic inefficiencies we saw in the business of law. We’re delighted that our business has since grown from niche to mainstream and is now truly ‘corporate finance for law.’ From day one, our priority has been to listen to clients’ needs, and as a result, we have a suite of tools that provide liquidity, de-risk contingent matters and enable more strategic affirmative recoveries. Burford has earned a reputation as the go-to firm for legal finance, and we’re excited about the road ahead. We’ll keep our focus on clients, innovation and advancing the business of law.”

Data from Burford’s business confirms its performance as a legal finance industry leader:

  • Exceptional growth in our business: Burford began in 2009 as a $130 million fund; today, Burford has a portfolio of more than $7 billion.
  • Increased demand for what we do: In 2009, Burford committed $11 million to legal finance assets; in 2023, that number was $1.2 billion on a Group-wide basis.
  • Growing relevance to sophisticated businesses, with innovation to address corporate balance sheet and P&L needs: More than half our business now comes from corporate clients. Many seek monetizations ― where Burford provides businesses immediate capital by advancing some of the expected entitlement of a pending claim, judgment or award ― and we have committed very substantial capital over the past five years to monetization deals from $10 million to $325 million.
  • Development of human capital and proprietary data: In 2009, we had five employees; today, we have seven offices and more than 150 employees. In addition, Burford has built an industry-leading proprietary database of commercial dispute outcomes and tools that harness machine learning, data analytics and artificial intelligence to benefit our clients and our performance.
  • NYSE-listed in 2020: We have been public since 2009 and have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2020.

Similarly, research released today by Burford reveals that legal finance has exploded in visibility and value with lawyers. Key findings include:

  • 82% of law firm lawyers surveyed claim to have used legal finance, a ninefold increase since Burford first asked law firm lawyers this question in 2012. Although confirmation bias may result in overstatement of actual use, even accounting for this, legal finance’s enormous increased stated use reflects its visibility and acceptance in the business of law.
  • Lawyers are using legal finance in more sophisticated ways: Many law firm lawyers affirm that legal finance is now used to strategically manage risk rather than because clients lack funds. Law firm lawyers and their clients see legal finance as a strategic tool across commercial litigation and arbitration as well as more complex financial structures like portfolio financing and funded patent divestitures.
  • An Am Law 50 law firm partner said: “For some of the bigger clients, you see more portfolio deals rather than single transactions. Not many companies start with a portfolio, but as they see success, both law firms and corporations are pursuing portfolio transactions.”
  • Law firms are embracing legal finance to fuel growth, as more than eight in ten of those surveyed report a more positive perception of legal finance than 15 years ago.
  • A Global 100 law firm partner said: “The client's mindset has completely changed, and they are now coming to their outside counsel and asking for litigation funding options. Offering the use of funding and using it is a validation of the merit of a claim and is a good pressure point.”
  • Law firm lawyers confirm that corporate clients are increasingly using legal finance, as 82% of those surveyed said the use of legal finance by corporations has increased over this period.
  • A litigation boutique partner said: “Litigation is a bottom-line cost. If corporations can spread that risk by sharing it with an outside capital provider, CFOs want to explore that option, especially because corporations hate litigation expenses. They are much more open to it if they can get some or all of it covered by legal finance.”

The research is based on one-on-one phone interviews conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors with 44 senior lawyers from global law firms in August and September 2024. The participants included partners, department heads and practice group chairs. Of these respondents, 34% came from AmLaw 100 law firms and 30% from Global 100 law firms.

Read More

Funded Class Action Targeting Online Gambling Operators in the Netherlands

By Harry Moran |

The online gambling market has seen enormous growth over recent years. However, the dramatic rise of this sector has left vulnerable consumers open to abuse, with a new class action in the Netherlands seeking to address this.

An article in iGB covers a Dutch class action being brought against a group of licensed online gambling operators, who were active in the Netherlands prior to receiving their official licenses to operate. The class action is being brought by Dutch advocacy organisation, Gokverliesterug, on behalf of Dutch consumers for losses suffered with these operators prior to 1 October 2021, the date at which the Netherlands legalised its online gambling market. 

The core allegation of the class action is that these companies allowed Dutch citizens to gamble using their online platforms before the legalisation took place, meaning that these consumers were not protected by the proper oversight and regulation of problem gambling behaviours. The gambling operators named in the Gokverliesterug lawsuit include major global gaming brands such as Unibet, Bwin, PokerStars and Bet365; although iGB’s article includes a denial from Bet365 that it was active in the Netherlands prior to being licensed. 

The lawyer representing Gokverliesterug, Koen Rutten of law firm Finch, stated: “We hope for a quick settlement of the case, but thanks to a litigation funder, we have sufficient clout to conduct a lengthy procedure up to the European Court. In doing so, we have paid extra attention for the role of parties that have facilitated illegal casinos for years, such as banks and payment processors.”

The litigation funder backing the case has not been identified.

International Legal Finance Association Adds IVO Capital Partners as New Member

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced the addition of Paris-based legal finance provider IVO Capital Partners as its 25th member. 

“ILFA is pleased to welcome IVO Capital Partners to our growing membership ranks,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “IVO’s addition serves as the quarter century mark for ILFA’s global membership. The firm will play a crucial role in helping ILFA promote the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector around the world.” 

“We are thrilled that IVO’s team is joining ILFA’s diverse roster of commercial legal funders,” said Neil Purslow, ILFA Chairman and Co-Founder of Therium, an ILFA member. “The addition of yet another legal finance provider this year demonstrates the increasingly important role that ILFA plays as the global voice for the ever-expanding legal finance industry, particularly in Europe.” 

IVO Capital Partners is an independent asset management company specializing in corporate debt and has established itself as a leader in the European legal finance industry. The firm boasts over a decade of experience in litigation funding, investing over $166 million in 64 cases across a wide array of geographies and action types. IVO is currently deploying its third legal finance fund, IVO Legal Strategies Fund III SLP. 

“The key role being played by ILFA in working with members of the litigation funding industry, as well as all other professionals involved with this industry, has made this membership a requirement for us to be even more active in the evolution and growth of the industry,” said Paul de Servigny, the fund manager of IVO’s litigation finance activities. “With Europe as our main source of business, we are very happy to be able to contribute to growing ILFA’s reach and understanding of different jurisdictions and how litigation finance is viewed there.”

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official.

About IVO Capital Partners 

IVO Capital Partners is an independent French asset management company with more than €1.5 billion in assets under management. Founded in 2012, it invests in listed and unlisted credit on emerging market corporate bonds and litigation finance. IVO Capital Partners' expertise allows its client-investors to access new investment universes with clarity and profitability and also to provide access to financing, on the one hand, to companies established in emerging countries and, on the other hand, to litigation so that they can lead to compensation. The company employs 14 nationalities and invests in more than 50 countries. IVO is among Europe’s leaders in the legal finance industry, with more than $166 million invested and more than 64 cases financed as of 2024. For over a decade, IVO’s expert investment team has ensured asymmetric returns for investors while promoting the rights of parties involved in meritorious litigation and class-action lawsuits. For more information, visit www.ivocapital.com

Read More
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Richard Culberson, CEO, VoiceNation and Moneypenny North America

By John Freund |

Member Bio: Richard Culberson is the CEO of VoiceNation and Moneypenny North America, global leaders in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. The business  has an award-winning culture, with over 1,000 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

Company Name and Description:  Moneypenny and VoiceNation are America’s leading virtual receptionist & phone answering providers offering 24/7 communication solutions. 

Collectively, Moneypenny and VoiceNation employ over 1,000 people handling millions of calls, chats and bespoke tech solutions for thousands of businesses of all shapes and sizes from sole traders right up to multinational corporations.

Company Websitewww.voicenation.com & www.moneypenny.com

Year Founded:  2000

Headquarters:  Atlanta (USA) and Wrexham (UK)

Area of Focus: Richard Culberson, CEO of North America, focuses on strategic growth, innovation, and market expansion in the region combining the very best people and tech to provide gold standard customer contact solutions. 

Member Quote: "Litigation funding is transforming how businesses approach legal disputes. Moneypenny and VoiceNation provide bespoke call answering and customer service solutions, ensuring prompt and professional responses that improve client engagement and lead generation. We also provide 24/7 availability, allowing firms to capture opportunities and deliver excellent customer service even outside regular business hours.”

Read More

High Rise Financial Obtains $100 Million in Financing, Bryant Park Capital Acting as Exclusive Advisor

By Harry Moran |

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”) is pleased to report that High Rise Financial, LLC recently secured a $100 million senior secured credit facility with a group of syndicated bank lenders. High Rise Financial was founded by Mark Berookim and Michael Berookim in 2016 and is based in Los Angeles, California.

Bryant Park Capital served as the exclusive financial advisor to High Rise Financial in arranging this senior secured credit facility. Founded in 1991, BPC is an investment bank providing mergers and acquisitions, debt & equity, and corporate strategic advisory services to its clients in the middle market. For over 30 years, BPC has successfully guided middle-market firms through growth, expansion, and sales or acquisitions. Due to our client-driven approach, we have developed and maintain deep relationships with strategic and financial buyers, banks, private equity firms, hedge funds, and other institutional investors.

Michael Berookim, Managing Member of High Rise Financial, stated, “BPC’s combination of strong specialty finance expertise and industry relationships, along with their deep understanding of personal injury pre-settlement funding and medical factoring, has helped further accelerate our already exponential growth. They remain a valuable partner to us, and we are appreciative of their efforts to help us reach this $100 million milestone. They were a trusted advisor in the process from day one.”

About High Rise Financial

High Rise Financial is a leading nationwide litigation finance company in the personal injury industry. The company specializes in plaintiff pre-settlement funding, medical factoring and providing a network of medical providers that treat personal injury victims. High Rise Financial is a relationship-based company known for its ease of use and exceptional service to law firms, plaintiffs and medical providers. 

For more information about High Rise Financial, please visit www.highriselegalfunding.com.

About Bryant Park Capital

Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle-market public and private companies. BPC excels in providing M&A advisory and capital raising services for complex deal structures. BPC has raised various forms of credit and growth equity and assisted in mergers and acquisitions for its clients. The firm has completed approximately 30 engagements worth over $2 billion in transaction value within the legal funding industry. Overall, the team has completed more than 400 assignments representing an aggregate transaction value of over $30 billion. 

For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

Read More

Burford Capital Earmarks Further $150 Million for The Equity Project to Advance Diversity in Commercial Dispute Leadership

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, is doubling down on its commitment to addressing the lack of diversity in the leadership of commercial litigation and arbitration. In announcing the third phase of its award-winning Equity Project, Burford is earmarking an additional $150 million to fund commercial matters with a female or racially diverse lawyer in a leadership role, bringing its cumulative funds earmarked for this initiative to more than $300 million.

  • Given its leadership in funding global commercial litigation and arbitration, Burford has a front row seat to the continued lack of diverse lawyers in leadership roles and saw a need to address this gap.
  • Burford first launched The Equity Project in 2018 with $50 million earmarked to financing cases led by female lawyers.
  • In 2021, Burford launched phase two of The Equity Project, earmarking a further $100 million and extending the initiative to also finance racially diverse lawyers; further, it added a promise to contribute a share of proceeds from successfully resolved matters to organizations that promote diversity in the business of law.
  • With cumulative Equity Project commitments of almost $170 million, Burford is launching phase three with an additional $150 million earmarked.
  • As in phase two, if phase three Equity Project-funded matters resolve successfully and generate expected returns, Burford will contribute on its client's behalf a portion of its profits to organizations that promote lawyer development for female and racially diverse lawyers.

Aviva Will, President of Burford Capital, leads Burford's Equity Project initiative. 

Ms. Will states: "The Equity Project reflects Burford's values and our pragmatism—our belief not only that it is right to use our capital and our industry leadership to help close the diversity gap in the leadership of commercial disputes, but also that there is a tangible benefit to our clients and the business of law to doing so."

She continues: "The whole Burford team is proud of the impact we have made. Clients appreciate The Equity Project as a tool to promote leadership from diverse backgrounds, and we hear directly from those who've been funded that it makes a difference in their careers. From when I first started practicing law to today, the business of law has made progress, but the legal profession remains slow to adapt, and in providing economic levers for change, we are doing our part to expedite still more."

Equity Project Mission and Impact

The Equity Project enables female and racially diverse lawyers to compete for leadership roles in significant matters with attractive terms in place. It incentivizes firms to promote talent from diverse backgrounds and demonstrates innovation to clients. Businesses can use Equity Project capital to encourage the firms that represent them to appoint female and racially diverse lawyers on their matters, and as a reason to talk to their firms about diverse representation and origination credit.

Equity Project matters funded to date include contract disputes, antitrust, federal statutory, IP/patent and treaty and commercial arbitration matters, with female and racially diverse litigators in leadership roles (first or second chair), and with clients represented by women- or minority-owned firms. Clients include large corporations and large litigation boutiques.

We have to date provided financing for 19 different matters from the Equity Project, some of which were multi-case portfolios. The average amount of capital committed per matter was $8.9 million, indicating that these are large, complex litigation and arbitration matters. The matters qualified for inclusion in the Equity Project on the following basis:

  • 14 with first or second chair female lawyers
  • 3 with first or second chair racially diverse lawyers
  • 2 with both a female and racially diverse lawyer as lead lawyers

Equity Project Champions

Burford has also expanded its cadre of Equity Project Champions, corporate and law firm leaders who will support and spread awareness of the initiative. The expanded list, which is currently in formation, includes the following returning and new* Champions:

APAC

  • *Angela Ee, Asean and Singapore Turnaround and Restructuring Strategy Leader, EY-Parthenon
  • *Blossom Hing, Director, Dispute Resolution and Corporate Restructuring & Workouts, Drew and Napier
  • Brenda Horrigan, International Arbitrator

Europe

  • *Conway Blake, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton
  • Amy Frey, Partner, King & Spalding
  • Sophie Nappert, International Arbitrator; Co-Founder, ArbTech
  • *Akima Paul Lambert, Partner, Hogan Lovells
  • Sue Prevezer QC, International Arbitrator, Mediator and Consultant, Brick Court Chambers
  • Noradèle Radjai, Partner, Lalive
  • *Lauma Skruzmane, Founding and Co-Managing Partner, Butler Reichline Skruzmane
  • Daniel Winterfeldt MBE QC (Hon), Founder & Chair Interlaw Diversity Forum, Managing Director & General Counsel – EMEA And Asia, Jefferies

US

  • Elizabeth Brannen, Managing Partner & Chair of Intellectual Property Litigation, Stris & Maher
  • Mylan Denerstein, Co-Chair, Public Policy Practice Group, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
  • *Ryan Dunigan, Senior Division Counsel, Corning, Incorporated
  • The Honorable Katherine B. Forrest, Partner, Paul Weiss
  • Faith Gay, Founding Partner, Selendy & Gay
  • Maria Ginzburg, Partner, Selendy & Gay
  • Megan E. Jones, Partner, Hausfeld
  • Carolyn Lamm, Partner, White & Case
  • Tara Lee, Partner, White & Case
  • Roberta D. Liebenberg, Senior Partner, Fine, Kaplan & Black
  • Veta T. Richardson, President & CEO, Association of Corporate Counsel
  • Adriana Riviere-Badell, Partner, Kobre & Kim
  • *Lauren M. Weinstein, Partner, MoloLamken

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 and Hong Kong.

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

Read More

Chamber of Commerce Publishes Paper ‘Debunking Myths’ in Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

Whilst the litigation funders and its advocates within the legal sector continue to promote the value of third-party funding to litigants and the broader legal system, opponents of litigation finance have not relented in putting forward their own arguments about why there is a need for greater regulation of the industry.

A new paper from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform sets out to once again challenge the litigation funding industry, arguing that the practice’s dominance within the legal system has not been accompanied by commensurate regulation or oversight that are seen in other areas of financial services. The paper entitled ‘Grim Realities: Debunking Myths in Third-Party Litigation Funding’ attempt to challenge these supposed myths, claiming that the funding industry “has successfully promoted a series of myths that boil down to the claim that TPLF is a benign—and usually salutary—business model that increases litigants’ access to justice and that should be of little interest to courts and lawmakers.”

The paper is divided into two main sections, with the first part dedicated to questioning the idea that litigation funders are altruistic investors, suggesting instead that third-party litigation funding “is just a vehicle for maximizing funders’ return on their investments—often to the detriment of the plaintiffs whose claims they are bankrolling.” To support this argument, the paper highlights four issues with the current state of litigation finance: the level of control funders can exert on cases, their alleged abuse of mass arbitrations, the involvement of foreign entities in US court cases, and the reduction in actual compensation received by litigants due to funders’ returns.

The second part of the paper then focuses on the response to third-party funding by the courts and policymakers, with the ILR report arguing that “the courts, legislatures, and regulators are becoming increasingly proactive in scrutinizing TPLF and requiring greater transparency of the practice.” The authors of the paper proceeds to list off a variety of responses to litigation funding including individual actions by federal district court judges, the introduction of new rules governing funding by state legislatures, and proposed regulatory measures in the UK and Europe.

The full paper can be read here.

Nakiki SE: Mask Lawsuits Will Not be Financed

By Harry Moran |

Nakiki SE announces that the two so-called “mask lawsuits” (lawsuits against the federal government for payment related to supply contracts for COVID masks), which are currently in the review phase or at the stage of a Letter of Intent, will not be financed after thorough and detailed examination.

Litigation funders such as Nakiki SE assess claims to be financed through both internal and external legal and economic evaluations. A decision not to finance a claim is not necessarily an indicator of the claim’s chances of success but may also be due to a limited risk appetite or other factors.

In principle, Nakiki SE remains interested in financing so-called mask lawsuits. Affected mask suppliers are still encouraged to contact Nakiki. Each case will be reviewed individually and promptly.

Read More

CASL Funding Extended Warranty Class Action

By Harry Moran |

Where corporations engage in deceptive actions that leave consumers financially wronged, class actions supported by third-party funders remain one of the best routes for these individuals to seek justice and compensation.

In a post on LinkedIn, CASL announced that it is funding a new class action launched by Echo Law multinational retailer Harvey Norman in Australia. The class action is being brought on behalf of consumers who bought goods with an extended warranty from Harvey Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne between 7 September 2018 and 17 September 2024. The proposed legal action focuses on allegations that these ‘Product Care’ extended warranties offered little or no value to consumers, as Australian Consumer Law provided for the same or greater rights to consumers on these purchases.

In the announcement, CASL said that it was “proud to support Echo Law's work in pursuit of remedies for consumers who were allegedly sold these junk warranties.” CASL also said that this case was a “clear example of how class action proceedings are a vital enforcement mechanism for Australia’s robust consumer protection laws.” The claim has been issued on an open class basis, which means that all eligible consumers will be included in the class unless they opt out.More information about the Harvey Norman (Extended Warranties) Class Action can be found on Echo Law’s website.

Houzhu Capital Hosts International Conference on Third-Party Funding Industry

By Harry Moran |

Houzhu Capital is delighted to invite you to join the International Conference on Third-party Funding Industry held in Beijing on 25 Sep, as part of the China Arbitration Week events. You may register here for in-person participation or online stream.

The Conference is the first international conference on TPF in China, which invites representatives from domestic and foreign arbitration centers, leading TPF institutions, well-known scholars, and practitioners from law firms and corporations.

Highlights of the event include:

  • Opening speech and welcome from Mr. Jin Huang, Chairman of Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center, and Mr. Jianlong Yu, Vice-president of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT).
  • Keynote speech on Third-party Funding in England and Wales: Learning from the Past, and Looking to the Future, by professor Rachael Patricia Mulheron from Queen Mary University.
  • Panel I: Third-party Funding in Arbitration Rules, moderated by Ms. Yulin Fu, Professor of Peking University Law School, joined by representatives from arbitration centers.
  • Panel II: International and Domestic Practice of Third-party Funding, moderated by Mr. Ning Fei, Senior Consultant of Houzhu Capital, joined by representatives from TPF institutions.
  • Panel III: International and Domestic Use of Third-party Funding, moderated by Mr. Jialu Wang, Co-funder of Houzhu Capital, joined by representatives from domestic and international corporations.

A cocktail reception will be provided after the Conference for networking and further communication.

About Houzhu

Houzhu Capital is a leading TPF institution in China with domestic and international business footprints and network. Founded by top legal professionals and as a pioneer in China, Houzhu has been committed to exploring the regulatory development and business practice of TPF services in China, supporting clients in domestic and international dispute resolution and asset recovery. You can find more about Houzhu here[Author2] 

Read More

How to Score a Win-Win Deal in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

One of the day two panels at the 7th Annual LF Dealmakers event was titled "Structuring Win-Win Deals". Michael Kelley, Partner at Parker Poe moderated a discussion between Joseph Dunn, Managing Director at Fortress Investment Group, Adam Hudes, Partner at Vinson & Elkins, Sarah Johnson, Head of Litigation Investing team at D.E. Shaw & Co., and Ryan Stephen, Co-Founder of Pine Valley Capital Partners.

The conversation began around structuring deals for alignment and success. Sarah Johnson noted that it's difficult to achieve perfect alignment, but pricing deals with 'good scenarios' in mind can ensure that all parties are satisfied. Of course, deals are bespoke, so this is very difficult. Which is why D.E. Shaw models out scenarios and walks through them with the client - what is a good settlement, what is a satisfactory damages amount? Ensuring that all parties are all on the same page, which goes into the documentation so all parties can agree to the terms upfront.

Ryan Stephen noted that at Pine Valley they are more law firm focused. They operate like a credit shop, in that they protect downside vs. focus on upside. They look at their capital as a de-risking tool, which means there can be a misalignment if the law firm thinks that value must be proven right away so capital can get out the door. They look to ensure alignment with both the plaintiff and the law firm, such that we're on a similar page in terms of what's a good outcome and what's an outcome that we would not accept. Also understanding of what the law firm needs from an operational perspective. The lender wants to continuously be de-risked, but there is a blind spot there, if the lender de-risks too quickly and the law firm doesn't have the resources need to effectively try their cases. So we need to get on the same page regarding operational budgets.

Michael Kelley then brought up the extrinsic factor of time, to which Ryan Stephen agreed that time is the risk that everyone is dealing with in the space. It is difficult to know what defendants are thinking, how plaintiffs will respond and behave. Getting on the same page regarding a variety of outcomes is key. Lawyers, by necessity, are eternal optimists. Everything is high value and coming very soon. Most capital providers know that is just not how it plays out, because you need to make sure that in those edge scenarios the law firms need to be safe, and the capital providers need to be safe as well.

Adam Hudes then spoke to red flags around non-alignment. He pointed to less-than clear exit terms, referencing the Burford / Sysco dispute as a scenario they want to stay away from. When dealing with a funder that can't clarify exit terms at the outset, that is something that his firm walks away from. From a law firm perspective, cases seem to be never-ending, so law firms are increasingly calculate how can we best manage the duration of these cases, and they want funders to understand that and work with them. If a funder is too pushy, that is another red flag. If they're not willing to truly partner with the law firm, then they should probably part ways early.

Michael Kelley asked about the risk of migration of terms, from the time that the term sheet is proposed. Joseph Dunn answered that it depends on the counter party. In this asset class there isn't a one-size-fits-all process for doing deals. There's less of a market, there's less data, there's fewer intermediaries who have seen that exact deal happen 20 times and here's how it's done. So that lends itself to parties re-cutting terms more frequently than in other asset classes. The likelihood of that happening is driven as much by personalities than it is the economics of a deal.

Dunn added: "I've probably never done a transaction where we agreed with the counter party on the value of the financing. So I think it's more about calling the counter party's BS vs. simply structuring the assets. When we structure deals, we ask the counter party what their view of success is. Usually we disagree with that, and we explain that's more of a homerun, and then propose a more downside scenario. If both sides blindly accept the upside case, then you're not keeping people aligned on the downside."

Moneypenny and VoiceNation Appoint New US Head of Marketing


By Harry Moran |

Moneypenny and VoiceNation, leading virtual receptionist and phone answering providers, have appointed a new US Head of Marketing, Kris Altiere.  Kris joins with over 20 years experience in marketing, growing revenue and improving brand awareness for companies of all sizes from start ups to rebrands and merging companies, which she has done time after time with great success.

Kris has a proven track record in establishing the brands she works with as the trusted leaders in their area, with a well defined identity.  She is an award-winning integrated marketing communications strategist, specializing in connecting vision with innovative digital communication solutions to drive sales, build brand image, and secure customer loyalty. Her role at Moneypenny and VoiceNation will be to drive US awareness and further the growth and recognition of the US brands though strategic marketing strategies, further solidifying the value proposition and expanding into new markets.  

Richard Culberson, CEO at Moneypenny North Amercia comments: “We are delighted to welcome Kris to our award-winning company and are excited about the fantastic experience she will bring to Moneypenny and VoiceNation. She’s an excellent addition to our rapidly growing team and her experience and expertise will be invaluable as we continue to strengthen our brands in the US.” 

Kris comments: “I am really looking forward to joining the diverse and global team and utilizing my extensive background and expertise in Healthcare and Legal to further expand those areas within the US, while growing the existing client sectors.  I am excited be part of the Moneypenny and VoiceNation award winning culture and to help lead and grow our marketing team, as well as work with the amazing UK marketing teams, to help the business with our ambitious growth plans.”

About our market-leading brands

Moneypenny and VoiceNation are America’s leading virtual receptionist & phone answering providers offering 24/7 communication solutions. 

Collectively, Moneypenny and VoiceNation employ over 1,000 people handling millions of calls, chats and bespoke tech solutions for thousands of businesses of all shapes and sizes from sole traders right up to multinational corporations.

Read More

Rebecca Berrebi Interviews Steven Molo at LF Dealmakers

By John Freund |

Day two of the 7th Annual LF Dealmakers event featured a 30-min 1:1 interview session between Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, and Steven Molo, Founding Partner of MoloLamken. The discussion was titled "Deep Dive: The Ultimate Decision Point - Taking a Case to Trial."

Below are some key highlights from the Q&A:

RB: Various sources report that fewer than 1% of civil cases filed in court actually go to trial. So why should funders care about trial?

SM: It's the ultimate risk. You've funded the case and you're betting on the fact that it doesn't go to trial. If it does, your investment is at risk. If you pay attention to the case the entire time and treat it as though it may go to trial, you're more likely to get a settlement that is beneficial.

RB: How do you choose jury consultants, and what does that process look like?

SM: Some people think that the venue is the most important thing, and some are particularly skilled or experienced in certain types of cases and they've developed a lot of data over time. Each of those things come into play. People do different types of research - phone surveys (I'm not sure how valuable they really are), focus groups, min-trials or mock trials (I think the concept of this is overblown). It's really about coming up with a plan for the case, understanding the venue, and if it's a big enough case hiring multiple consultants. You should be informed by-but not imprisoned by-the research.

RB: How important is it to have a lead trial lawyer with subject matter expertise?

SM: What's important is trial advocacy. Who can go before a judge and jury and lead trial information forward, rather than just pounding them over the head with information. Having expertise is important, but you don't need to be the world's foremost expert to lead a trial.

RB: How important is the selection of local counsel when your primary trial team is in one location and the trial is out of town?

SM: A lot depends on the venue. Those who have funded patent cases in Texas, you know there are the usual players that line up on either side of the case, and that's how the process works. I think you can overweight that - this fear of 'getting homered' where the local judge is in the pocket of the local lawyer. It can work the other way too - that judge might not like that lawyer! The general rule we try to follow is 'get good local counsel.' Don't worry about being overshadowed by local counsel.

I've found that most judges around the country get a kick from having a lawyer from out of town come into their courtroom. It's something interesting and it's a break from their day to day. As long as that lawyer behaves themselves, it can become a positive situation.

RB: Trials obviously include witness, and often the outcome of a case can depend on the witness' performance. What can the funder do to ensure the witness' ability to perform?

SM: Obviously with privilege issues, you don't want to be in there preparing the witness. But you can assess somebody as a communicator, and there's no reason why you can't have a conversation with the plaintiff in the case to let them know what you think about this person.

Beyond that, you can impose a structure on witness preparations with counsel. Will it be a written Q&A, if so, that Q&A might have to be produced at trial. Also where will you do the preparation? We have some courtroom-like settings, and having someone sit in a conference room is not the same thing as having them sit in the witness box. Best to bring the witness into the courtroom so they can experience it before going into trial for the first time, which is a very stressful situation. Also structuring the timeline of the preparation, so it's not done the night before. Also getting an experienced lawyer in your firm to do the mock cross examination, so there is a tension there that wouldn't otherwise be there if they're being mock-crossed by someone they know and are familiar.

Setting up the structure beforehand is something funders can address without running into privilege concerns.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Rocco Pirozzolo, Managing Director and Director of Underwriting, Harbour Underwriting Limited

By John Freund |

Rocco has been the underwriting director of Harbour Underwriting Limited since its incorporation and is also its managing director. He is a solicitor who has spent over two decades developing and providing insurance for a wide variety of legal disputes brought around the world. Apart from being a seasoned underwriter, he has also been a director in the investment team of Harbour Litigation Funding and so has vast experience of complex litigation risks.

Rocco is one of the leading figures in the dispute resolution community. Since 2003, he has served on numerous forums and Working Parties of the Civil Justice Council, a statutory body responsible for overseeing and modernising the civil justice system. He has also been the Chair of The Association of British Insurers’ Legal Expenses Committee.

Rocco is named in Band 1 as a Leading Individual in the Litigation Insurance Underwriters UK section ofChambers and Partners Litigation Support guide 2024 and also included in Lawdragon’s 2024 list of the 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance.

He is the general editor ofThe Law Society’s Litigation Funding Handbook and the author of several of its chapters, including that on dispute insurance. He is also the co-author of the chapter on legal expenses insurance in the practitioners’ textbookFriston on Costs.

Cases insured by Rocco include:

  • various class actions (including securities claims) brought around the world, including in the UK, Australia and Canada
  • professional negligence claims, including against lawyers, auditors and surveyors, such as in Levicom International Holdings BV v Linklaters (a firm) [2010] EWCA Civ 494
  • intellectual property claims, such as Bentley 1962 Limited & Brandlogic Limited v Bentley Motors Limited [2019] EWHC 2925
  • group actions, including environmental claims such as Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312.

Rocco has been instructed over the years as an expert on dispute insurance, including by The Law Society in its intervention in a landmark case heard before the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2015] UKSC50.

Company Name and Description:    Harbour Underwriting Ltd

Company Website: https://harbourunderwriting.com

Year Founded:  2016

Headquarters:  4th Floor, 8 Waterloo Place, London England, SW1Y 4BE

Area of Focus:  Commercial dispute insurance

Member Quote: "Litigation funders are sophisticated users of commercial dispute insurance. Even though they may well be confident of the prospects of the case they are funding succeeding, they know only too well how disputes can unexpectedly and inexplicably ‘take a turn’ for the worst and so they value having commercial dispute insurance in place from the outset.”

Read More

Taking a Look at Recent Mass Torts Settlements

By John Freund |

In a panel titled “Getting Paid: A Breakdown of Recent Settlements”, Max Doyle, Chief Strategy Officer at Consumer Attorney Marketing Group moderated a panel between Sam Dolce, Vice President at Milestone, Jennifer Hoekstra, Partner at Aylstock, Witkin, Kries & Overholtz, Michael London, Founding Partner, at Douglas & London, and Eamon Walsh, President of North America at Advoc8se.

Jennifer Hoekstra began the conversation by offering a broad overview of the mass torts space, the types of cases that make their way through the sector, and the various case durations spanning the rare rapid recovery on one end of the spectrum, and the decade-long battle royal on the other end.

Michael London commented on the 3M claim, where they faced a massive 10-figure judgement and just days later declared bankruptcy. He then mused about tobacco cases, how "if you want to make it onto the front page of the New York Times, you try tobacco cases. If you never want to get paid, you try tobacco cases."

London then recounted war stories around lifestyle products, including several pharmaceutical companies which settled claims there their drugs contained symptoms that were not listed on the label, mesh cases, firefighting foam cases, 3M cases, etc. "There's always going to be something. Wait, keep your powder dry, and don't chase the marketer. Just use the smell test and common sense test of what makes sense."

Sam Dolce represents Milestone, a claims administrator, which helps people get paid. He spoke to administrative duration, which occurs on the backend of a litigation, and can be as much as months or even years before the payments actually go out. Milestone streamlines those processes so everyone gets paid much faster. Many top tier mass torts firms have not optimized their settlement duration procedures, so they are missing out on efficiencies once the case concludes.

Eamon Walsh points out that funders should have a robust checklist which scores everything from origination to settlement administration. That gives way to a secondary market where you can trade things more easily, and also makes you feel bulletproof in the sense that when you get to the negotiating table, you aren't suffering from the Achilles heel of incomplete information.

Sam Dolce added that firms that take the time to build the payment infrastructure can maximize efficiencies on the backend. Law firms should have workflows built into their business the way any other business would, and funders should look to fund such law firms. Every law firm is a business, after all.

Jennifer Hoekstra added that the individual you may be speaking with when interacting with a law firm might not know all the details of a case, but the firm knows all the details (someone else at the firm can answer those questions), so don't get put off if the individual you're speaking with doesn't have all of the answers off-hand.

Michael London spoke to the 3M verdicts which saw 8-figure verdict after 8-figure verdict, which 3M kept fighting and losing. In other cases, the defendant can't write a check quickly enough, so it depends on the defendant and how much pressure you can put on them, and whether they are eager to reach a resolution or not.

London also noted that the Bayer Monsanto claim is a $10 billion liability that keeps getting bigger. Yet London noted he believes there may be a pause in Bayer paying out its claims. "At some point you've got to let that golden goose take a break from laying its eggs, and let that company stay alive."

Finally, Sam Dolce recommended that investors in the space look to the firms who are already succeeding and investigate what is working for them. Don't make the mistake of looking at the aggregate payouts - some firms get very large checks while others do not. Understand what separates the most talented firms from those in the second and third tiers.

Jennifer Hoekstra echoed that sentiment. "I keep my ear to the ground on projects I don't work on. I look at everything across the board, even if we're not involved with it." Looking at cases that aren't moving forward towards a rapid settlement can give you an idea of what types of cases aren't working. If timelines and milestones aren't being met, then defendants won't feel pressured to reach settlements.

In other words, do your homework before embarking on investment within this very complex sector.

How Wall Street Money is Impacting the Mass Torts Sector

By John Freund |

Day one of this year’s LF Dealmakers event featured an entire day focused on one of the most prominent legal sectors within the litigation funding sphere: Mass Torts.

In the keynote session, titled “Mass Torts at a Crossroads: Is Wall Street Money a Catalyst or Complication?”, Seth Meyer, Managing Partner at Meyer Law Firm moderated a discussion between Steven Weisbrot, CEO of Angeion, and Harris Pogust, Founding Partner of Pogust Goodhead.

The conversation focused on Wall Street money’s impact on the litigation funding sector. The key question being if the influx of capital is a catalyst or complication.

Harris Pogust began the conversation by stating that there is no clear answer to that question. Many lives have been changed for the better thanks to the emergence of mass torts funding. That said, there are simply too many plaintiffs, and those plaintiffs that do get money aren’t seeing enough of it. “When I have to call some family whose family member died of cancer, and they’re supposed to get $100,000, but after attorney fees and all the other fees, they’re only getting $30,000, that makes me puke. That’s not what I got into this industry.”

While Steven Weisbrot does agree that the quantity of damages often isn’t reflected in what is deserved, he places the blame on access to capital, and the lack of optimization around bringing these types of cases in a more efficient manner. “I think capital really helps where you have a hard-to-reach target audience, whether they’re incarcerated or in geographically disparate locations. But we can’t just have attorneys settling saying ‘give me $1.2 billion and I’ll carve it up as I see fit.’”

Ultimately, there are four groups here: investors, funders, law firms and clients. Unfortunately, the people getting hurt the most are the clients. All other parties seem to be doing well. “There are firms that take $10 million and aggregate cases, and they make millions of dollars and they are happy,” explains Pogust, “but I’m a trial lawyer, not a businessman. I want to try good cases, not just make money.”

Pogust wants to see Wall Street be more careful with whom they give money to, so they don’t bring garbage cases and give the sector a black eye.

Wiesbrot agrees that vetting the firm and understanding their communication strategy is key. Also understanding if their strategy is about litigating vs. just aggregating. “Nurturing those relationships means less client attrition, and it’s also good because I can’t tell you how many random pieces of evidence have come out of those conversations. It’s good to hear from your clients directly about their experiences.”

In the end, Pogust was proven correct, in that no clear answer to the question of whether Wall Street money is a net positive or negative emerged. One can make a case either way, and as mass torts funding continues to accelerate in the coming years, it is doubtless this debate will continue on.

LCM Releases Full Year Audited Results for the Year Ended 30 June 2024

By Harry Moran |

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) has released its full year audited results for the year ended 30 June 2024.

Highlights

  • Net realised gains of A$32.2m (FY23: A$51.5m), with concluded case investments generating a 2.4x multiple of cash invested (MOIC)
  • Total income of A$44.7m (FY23: A$67.7m)
  • Profit after tax for the period of A$12.7m (FY23: A$31.5m)
  • Dividend of 1.25p (FY23: 2.25p)
  • Net assets of A$188.9m (FY23: A$183.5m) with cases conservatively valued at 1.9x cash invested
  • Book value per share of 94.4 pence (FY23: 90.3 pence)
  • Total new commitments of A$279m added in the period (FY23: A$176m)
  • Fund I which comprises US$150m of external capital is fully committed and Fund II which comprises US$291m of external capital is 58% committed
  • Share buyback program is 70% complete and remains ongoing

Strategic Update

  • The Company is continuing its transition to asset management. Fund III marketing to commence towards the end of 2024 calendar year
  • Preparing a disciplined and staged entry into the US market. 
  • Acquired the intellectual property of a cutting edge legal finance Big Data/AI platform. Application of this technology to form part of US market entry and drive enhanced origination and investment diligence more broadly across the Company

Commenting on the results, Patrick Moloney, CEO of Litigation Capital Management, said: "We are pleased to have extended our industry-leading track record with successful case outcomes over the past 12 months driving our 13-year investment performance to an impressive 2.9x multiple of invested capital. Our transition from balance sheet funder to high return asset manager is progressing well, and we are looking forward to engaging with our LP investor base as we commence marketing for Fund III.

"With our London operations firmly established, having generated realisations of over £100m at a MOIC exceeding 3x, we are now strategically preparing for a disciplined and staged entry into the US market. As part of this strategic initiative, we've recently acquired the IP of a leading legal finance Big Data/AI platform. We see substantial opportunities to leverage this technology across our business in an asset class that is ideally suited for such innovation."

The full result announcement and audited results can be read here.

Read More

Bay Point Closes $50 Million Capital Raise for Legal Investment Fund

By Harry Moran |

Bay Point Advisors LLC, an Atlanta-based investment firm with a focus in niche private markets, is proud to announce the successful close of a $50 million capital raise for Bay Point Legal Fund II. This raise demonstrates Bay Point’s commitment to providing innovative investment solutions in the litigation finance sector.

The newly raised capital will be deployed to identify, invest, and support allocations across several litigation strategies, including primary and secondary mass tort acquisition, mass arbitrations, and single event cases.

“This marks a significant milestone in our 12-year journey. Bay Point Legal Fund II advances our initial vision for the firm of offering uncorrelated investment opportunities. We are excited to leverage our team’s expertise in litigation finance to continue our growth trajectory and deliver value for our investors,” said Charles Andros, President and Chief Investment Officer at Bay Point Advisors.

Bay Point Legal has a team of experienced professionals who possess deep expertise in legal, financial, and operational aspects of litigation finance. Bay Point believes that its investment approach and extensive network enable the firm to identify and capitalize on high-value opportunities.

Sean Coleman, Managing Director of Bay Point’s Legal Finance strategy, stated, “We are excited about the closing of Bay Point Legal Fund II. We have substantial capital to make an impact in the quickly evolving litigation finance vertical. Fund II will build on the creative and diversified, equity-type, mass tort investments made in Fund I while also expanding into new investment opportunities such as hybrid torts, abuse cases, mass arbitrations and single events. The fund has the potential to provide returns uncorrelated to equity markets, while also helping deliver equitable compensation to claimants who previously had limited avenues to justice.”

About Bay Point Advisors:

Founded in 2012 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Bay Point Advisors is a privately held investment firm with a strategic focus on niche markets often underserved by traditional financial institutions. Bay Point’s broad investment criteria allows for a dynamic response to market shifts. Committed to meeting the evolving needs of clients, Bay Point specializes in the prompt delivery of tailor-made capital.

About Bay Point Legal:

Bay Point Legal is the litigation finance arm of Bay Point Advisors. Specializing in equity investments in mass torts, single events, and mass arbitrations, the fund is dedicated to providing solutions that deliver strong returns while making a positive impact on the lives of those affected by corporate negligence. The legal fund leverages extensive industry experience and a robust network to identify, invest, and manage risk-adjusted investments in litigation finance.

Read More

AALF Welcomes Three New Associate Members

By Harry Moran |

In a series of posts on LinkedIn over the last week, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) announced that it has welcomed Ebury, Sedgwick, and Sapere as its newest Associate Members. With the addition of these three new members, AALF now boasts a total of 18 Associate Members in addition to its eight Funder Members.

On September 12, AALF welcomed Ebury as an Associate Member. The global fin-tech company specialises in international payments, collections and foreign exchange services. As part of its global network of 31 offices in 21 countries, Ebury Australia’s domestic footprint includes operations in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. More information about Ebury can be found on its website.  

On September 14, AALF then welcomed Sedgwick as an Associate Member. A global provider of technology-enabled risk, benefits and integrated business solutions, Sedgwick’s range of solutions interact with the litigation funding market primarily through its claims administration services and expert witness/litigation services for class actions, mass torts and commercial disputes. Sedgwick’s presence in Australia includes offices in Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Perth. More information about Sedgwick can be found on its website

Finally, on September 16, AALF welcomed Sapere as its newest Associate Member. Sapere is one of the largest expert consulting firms in Australia and provides independent economic, forensic accounting and public policy services. In the world of litigation funding, Sapere offers expert witness and forensic accounting services to corporate clients, major law firms, government agencies, and regulatory bodies. Sapere has offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Perth, and Brisbane, as well as two offices in New Zealand. More information about Sapere can be found on its website

A full list of AALF’s funder members and associate members can be found here.

DOJ “Actively Considering” Filing a Statement of Interest in Burford Capital’s $16B Argentina Case

By Harry Moran |

In the world of litigation funding cases with geopolitical implications, there can be few more significant than the ongoing dispute between Burford Capital and Argentina over the enforcement and collection of the $16 billion YPF award.

An article in the Buenos Aires Times covers the news that the United States Department of Justice sent a letter to US District Judge Loretta Preska asking the Manhattan court to delay ruling on Burford Capital’s request for the court to order Argentina to turn over its 51% interest in YPF. The reason for this requested delay, is that the US government is “actively considering whether to file a Statement of Interest with respect to the pending motion for an injunction and turnover.”

In the letter sent by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, the DOJ said that it “respectfully requests that the Court reserve decision on the pending motion for an injunction and turnover until the United States has had an opportunity to submit any such statement of interest.” The letter explained that it will be in a position to inform the court whether it does intend to file a Statement of Interest, and submit this statement, no later than November 6, 2024. 

Whilst this may seem like a prolonged period for the government to be considering whether to file the statement, the DOJ explained that its process for making a decision on this “involves coordination among interested government agencies and the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice through the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.”

The full DOJ letter can be read here.

Analysing the Litigation Finance Marketplace

By Harry Moran |

The contentious debate over future regulation of the litigation finance market tends to primarily focus on the impact of outside funding on the legal system or on individual cases, a new academic paper looks at the issue through a broader lens, arguing that ‘litigation finance generally promotes marketplace efficiency and should be encouraged.’

In a forthcoming paper for the Southern California Law Review, Suneal Bedi and William Marra provide a new outlook on the debate over the regulation of third-party litigation funding. Bedi and Marra explain that their article ‘reframes the debate about litigation finance’, broadening the conversation from the effects of outside capital of the legal system, to an examination of ‘how litigation finance affects competition not only in the courtroom but also in the marketplace’.

The authors centre their analysis around the business concept of “non-market strategies”, looking at how funding is used by companies outside of the courthouse to ‘access the capital markets and gain an advantage in the marketplace’. Bedi and Marra emphasises that whilst their non-market strategy analysis is focused on litigation finance within this paper, ‘it holds the promise to reframe the debate around legal issues far beyond the realm of litigation funding.’

Through this analysis, Bedi and Marra argue that proposed regulation of third-party funding will go beyond the courthouse and affect the capital markets as well, ‘with significant but unexplored implications for contemporary debates about funding.’ They go further and argue that regulating the litigation finance market ‘is especially likely to harm small and medium-sized enterprises’, as these are the companies relying on third-party funding for capital raises.

The full article can be read here.

Suneal Bedi is an associate professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. William Marra is a director at Certum Group and lectures at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

Bryant Park Capital Secures $100 Million in Capital for Deminor

By Harry Moran |

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”), announced today that Deminor Recovery Services (“Deminor”), a leading privately-owned global litigation funder, recently closed on an approximately $100,000,000 committed senior credit facility and asset-backed financing with two leading U.S. based asset managers focused on the legal assets industry.

BPC, a leading US-based middle market investment bank, served as the exclusive financial advisor to Deminor in connection with this transaction.

“Bryant Park Capital’s extensive knowledge of the financing markets, combined with their strong relationships and creative structuring capability have been invaluable and helped us complete this complex set of transactions that we believe will be transformative for our clients, employees and shareholders, reflecting how our business model and international footprint has expanded since our first external capital raise in 2021. Significantly, these investments, made on Deminor’s own balance sheet, will continue to enable Deminor to deliver fast decision-making and flexible funding terms, with final investment decisions resting with our Investment Committee. Bryant Park Capital has been an excellent partner for us and we greatly appreciate BPC’s guidance and support throughout the process,” said Erik Bomans – CEO, Deminor.

Commenting on Deminor’s platform and performance, Joel Magerman, Bryant Park Capital’s Managing Partner added, “Deminor has generated significant returns extending through multiple market cycles as a leading player in the litigation funding sector, and this capital raise will provide an opportunity to significantly expand the operating leverage of the Deminor platform internationally.

About Deminor

Founded in 1990, Deminor is a leading privately-owned global litigation funder with 9 offices across continental Europe, London, New York, and Hong Kong.

Deminor has funded cases across four continents and 22 jurisdictions spanning 18 case categories as a leader in investment recovery, anti-trust, collective consumer, and commercial tort across 25 industries.

For more information about Deminor, please visit www.deminor.com.

Read More

Travis Lenkner Rejoins Burford Capital in Newly Created Chief Development Officer Role

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces that Travis Lenkner has rejoined the company as a member of its Management Committee in the newly created role of Chief Development Officer.

Based in London, Mr. Lenkner is focused on Burford’s future and its ongoing transformation of the legal industry. His responsibilities involve identifying and executing strategic initiatives that drive growth and align with the company’s long-term objectives, and his areas of focus include law firm equity investments, the alternative delivery of legal services to corporate and individual clients, and legal tech, including AI.

Mr. Lenkner is a longtime global leader in the legal finance market, including as a launch partner of Gerchen Keller Capital, which Burford acquired in 2016. More recently, he co-founded and was Managing Partner of Keller Lenkner LLC; he also co-founded and was a Director of the firm’s European counterpart. In addition, he was Senior Counsel at The Boeing Company and a litigation and appellate attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Mr. Lenkner was also a clerk for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, says: “We are pleased to welcome Travis Lenkner back as a member of the Management Committee in the newly created role of Chief Development Officer, where he will be focused on the continued growth of Burford’s business. Travis has had a tremendous impact as a leader in law and legal finance, which includes the impact he made while previously at Burford. The legal field is generally slow to change but Burford remains committed to being at the forefront of its modernization, including changes related to equity investments in law firms and new technology such as AI. As a seasoned executive who has spent much of his career in legal finance, Travis shares Burford’s commitment to advancing the business of law, and we at Burford welcome his leadership and unique perspective as our business continues to grow.”

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 and Hong Kong.

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

Read More

Nera Capital secures £20m Funding Line from Fintex Capital

Nera Capital, a pioneering specialist funding provider to law firms, is pleased to announce a new strategic partnership with Fintex Capital, the innovative investment firm dedicated to private debt. As part of this partnership, Nera secured an initial £20 million investment from Fintex.

The demand for law firm financing is growing quickly, as more and more consumers look for redress from hidden commissions on car financing to housing disrepair. The new funding line will allow more consumers to have access to the justice they deserve as the financial barriers are diminished.

The partnership marks a significant milestone for both companies. It expands Nera Capital’s reach, diversifies its funding sources and enables it to bring the benefits of capital and expertise to a wider set of consumers. For Fintex, this is another landmark transaction, the 3rd UK funding line of c. £20 million. This investment was fully funded by Fintex Capital’s flagship fund, Fintex Private Debt.

Aisling Byrne, Director of Nera Capital, said: “Fintex Capital’s investment enables the firm to accelerate its growth trajectory, further scaling its operations to provide crucial financial support to clients when they need it most. Along with being better positioned to ensure justice remains accessible, even against the most formidable adversaries, the additional funding line increases Nera Capital’s diversification.

The Fintex investment strengthens Nera’s financial base, diversifies our funding sources and allows us to explore new avenues in our market. It also enables us to scale our robust platform. We are pleased that our operations were once again endorsed by a prominent institutional investor.

Fintex made an excellent name for itself as a sophisticated, reliable lender in the UK and beyond. The Fintex team led by Sophie Batoua were a pleasure to deal with and the transaction was successfully executed in record time.”

Robert Stafler, CEO of Fintex Capital, said: “It comes as no surprise that demand for law firm finance is on the rise. This granular, insurance-backed financing provides vital funding to consumers when they need it most. It enables them and their lawyers to bring justice to families who without Nera’s support would be unable to seek redress.

Nera has a strong track record in its market, having successfully provided c. £200m in funding for UK consumer claims to date. We are delighted to see that our investment helps Nera solidify its position as a leader in its field. To us, this is just the beginning of a successful long-term partnership.”

Advisors: Nera Capital was advised by Walker Morris LLP, Mason Hayes & Curran LLP, and Copsey Murray Chartered Accountants. Fintex Capital was advised by Fox Williams LLP and Mason Hayes & Curran LLP

-ENDS-About Nera Capital: Established in 2011, Nera Capital is a specialist litigation funding provider with a presence in Manchester, Dublin, and The Netherlands. The firm is dedicated to supporting law firms and providing the financial resources necessary to pursue justice in both their Consumer and Commercial divisions.

Fintex Capital: (www.fintexcap.com) is a pioneering investment firm specialising in private debt. Since its inception, the firm has provided close to £400 million in private debt capital to borrowers across Specialty Finance and Real Estate Debt. Fintex is known for providing senior and mezzanine debt facilities to lending businesses in the UK and beyond; it also provides direct lending to asset-backed businesses and asset owners. The firm manages discretionary investment funds, as well as segregated managed accounts for various institutions.

Read More

Burford Capital Celebrates its 15th Anniversary

Today marks the 15th anniversary of the founding of Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. In just 15 years, Burford has gone from a single $130 million investment fund to a $7.4 billion industry leader – with a 27x increase in its market capitalization.

Burford is fortunate to have a deep and continually growing bench of talented professionals from the world’s leading law firms and companies; we report below on the latest additions to the Burford team.

In recognition of that strong bench and a continued focus on our clients, Burford is today appointing Aviva Will, currently Co-Chief Operating Officer, as President. In her new role, Ms. Will’s focus will be predominantly on high-value, client-facing activities as we continue to expand our global relationships and the business evolves yet more towards complex financings with sophisticated corporate counterparties.

Burford is similarly appointing David Perla, also currently Co-Chief Operating Officer, into a new market-facing role of Vice Chair, focusing globally on Marketing, Public Policy, Industry Affairs and Public Relations, drawing on Mr. Perla’s experience and relationships in past leadership roles, including as President of Bloomberg Law.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, says: “It should come as no surprise that Burford Capital continues to not only grow talent from within, but also to attract experienced senior professionals. In our 15th year, my co-founder Jon Molot and I are incredibly proud of Burford’s successes and its extraordinary people. Jon and I are just as committed today as we were on day one to redefining and advancing the business of law.”

Burford has also recently added a number of senior professionals from top global corporations and law firms, including:

Andrew Farthing as a Director in Texas, responsible for managing matters in Burford’s US portfolio. Prior to joining Burford, Mr. Farthing was a Director at Apple and previously a senior litigator at Latham & Watkins.

Carrie Tendler as Special Counsel in New York, responsible for advising on the enforcement of judgments in cases backed by Burford with a particular focus on the YPF matter. Prior to joining Burford, Ms. Tendler was a Partner at Kobre & Kim and a litigator at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

Josh Reed as Senior Vice President in Chicago, responsible for managing matters in Burford’s patent portfolio. Prior to joining Burford, Mr. Reed was Head of Global Litigation at the Sisvel Group and Chief IP Counsel at Allscripts.

Kate Tellez as Senior Vice President in Chicago, responsible for assessing and underwriting legal risk as part of Burford’s patent group. Prior to joining Burford, Ms. Tellez was a Partner at Steptoe.

Florencia Villaggi as Vice President in New York, responsible for assessing and underwriting legal risk in investor-state and international commercial arbitration. Prior to joining Burford, Ms. Villaggi was Counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills.

Josh Wood as Head of Investor Relations in New York, with responsibility for directing Burford’s investor relations activities. Prior to joining Burford, Mr. Wood was Head of Shareholder Relations at Patria Investments and previously Vice President at Carlyle.

Nicholas Sinigaglia has joined as Global Controller in New York as a key member of the finance management team. Prior to joining Burford, Mr. Sinigaglia was Chief Accounting Officer at Pie Insurance.

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 and Hong Kong.

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

Read More