The following is a contribution from Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).  What is the best way to reduce the amount of companies offering Consumer Legal Funding? Simple: Put a RATE on it! In Beyonce’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on it),” the lyrics read: “If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it.” The US Chamber and Insurance Industry are singing a similar tune when it comes to Consumer Legal Funding. However in their song, the lyrics read: “Put a RATE on it.” They want to put a rate on Consumer Legal Funding because they want the product to disappear from the marketplace, plain and simple. If you look at the recent passage of an 18% rate cap in West Virginia, which passed earlier this year, the bill has eliminated the Consumer Legal Funding industry from the state. According to the West Virginia Secretary of States website, there are ZERO Consumer Legal Funders registered to operate in the state. This is a replication of what happened in Arkansas when the state passed a 17% rate cap in 2015. There has been ZERO business there since. Now let’s compare this to Oklahoma which passed a strong regulatory bill in 2013 that did not include a rate cap. Today, there are 20 companies offering the product in the state. But here is a real interesting fact about Oklahoma: Of the 20 companies offering the Consumer Legal Funding, a full 25% are Oklahoma-based. Check out Oklahoma’s own website. These are companies paying local taxes, hiring local employees, and growing the local economy. Isn’t that what the US Chamber of Commerce claims it tries to promote? Entrepreneurship, taking a risk and grabbing the American Dream. In fact, the motto of the US Chamber is “The Spirit of Enterprise.” CEO Tom J. Donohue talked about that very spirit in a speech back in 2017 at the AEI's Summer Honors Program. Maybe the US Chamber should piggyback off another Beyonce song, “Lemonade,” where she sings “You can taste the dishonesty, it’s all over your breath, as you pass it off so cavalier.” So which is it? Is the US Chamber for growing the US and local economies or are they for limiting and reducing them? Just want to know which song to queue up…

There is no other way to express it; the US commercial litigation finance industry is under assault from a variety of different interest groups and the industry lacks a homogenous voice to counter the opposition and to communicate its strong benefits. No doubt, many industry participants are well aware of the recent report by a hedge fund short- seller against the industry’s largest participant.  While the report raises many issues for consideration, it is also symptomatic of a multi-pronged attack on the industry, whether organized or purely by coincidence.  This article is a call for the industry to unite and create an association to represent interests of the various participants and beneficiaries of the industry (lawyers, plaintiffs, funders and investors). Why now?  Let’s look at the current litigation finance environment. US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform The single biggest opponent to the litigation finance industry has been the US Chamber of Commerce (“USCOC”), through their affiliate entitled U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (“ILR”).  The USCOC is the largest lobby group in America and the ILR has chosen litigation finance as one of its favourite punching bags. While the USCOC boasts 3 million members , large and small, it is important to note that according to an article published by U.S. News entitled “The Chamber’s Secrets”, more than 50% of their contributions came from 64 donors. The article suggests that much of the funding for the USCOC comes from large corporate interest in legacy industries (tobacco, firearms, fossil fuels, banking, etc.). Accordingly, based on their funding sources, it should be no surprise that they are opposed to litigation finance.  In fact, the article goes on to state that many of the smaller businesses which used to be members of the USCOC are partnering to create alternative organizations like the American Sustainable Business Council to look after their best interests.  Perhaps litigation finance should align itself with these splinter groups as there is likely a high commonality of interests vis-à-vis commercial litigation finance. So, what does this all mean for litigation finance? Well, the ILR has been lobbying the government hard to increase disclosure requirements related to litigation finance, and is espousing that litigation finance is a scourge that needs to be eradicated as it serves to promote frivolous lawsuits and increase the cost of litigation.  Their position is both inaccurate, and fails to serve the needs of all ILR members.  While certain members of corporate America would like to keep the proverbial litigation finance ‘genie’ in the ‘bottle’, we all know that litigation finance serves the interests of small corporate America particularly well by levelling the playing field through the provision of capital to pursue meritorious claims mainly for small corporations, the very constituency that the USCOC purports to represent. Of course, as the litigation finance industry pushes into providing portfolio financing to larger corporations (witness recent moves by Burford and Litigation Capital Management), it could very well be the case that the USCOC may no longer represent the best interests of its larger contributors. Nevertheless, in light of the organized effort to denigrate the need and value of litigation finance by the ILR, the commercial litigation finance industry needs a unified voice to educate the market and our elected officials about the benefits of litigation finance, and to ensure that legislative changes support access to justice and continued industry growth. Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure The single biggest complaint from the USCOC relates to disclosure which is being raised with increasing frequency in litigation where litigation finance is being used.  Recently, a favourable decision in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California was issued whereby Judge Illston held that the discovery of the identity of the litigation funder was irrelevant.  This decision somewhat contradicted a previous decision by the same judge which compelled disclosure, although in one case relevance was conceded whereas in the other it was not. While it remains unclear to what extent disclosure is being requested and when disclosure is applicable and relevant, the issue is an active one.  While it does appear that there is a strong bias by the judiciary against disclosure; that according to a study conducted by Westfleet Advisors entitled “Litigation Funding and Confidentiality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Current Case Law”, it is incumbent on the industry to ensure disclosure is appropriate for the circumstances. If disclosure relates to the existence of a third-party litigation finance provider in a case, many in the industry have said they would not necessarily be opposed to that level of disclosure. However, a panelist at a recent industry conference made an astute observation, suggesting that if the defense is even aware that a litigation funder is involved, the very knowledge of its involvement may influence the outcome of the case, which may be prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff.  Sometimes there is value in silence. If, on the other hand, disclosure encompasses the name of the funder and the amount and terms of the funding contract, this would clearly be prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff as it provides the defense with economic knowledge about the funding terms which it could use to its advantage. Either way, it is important for judicial authorities to understand the pros and cons of disclosure in the context of litigation finance so that they can rule in a way that is not prejudicial to either party in the case.  This is an area where education and lobbying by the industry could be an important determinant of standards for disclosure. Legislative Trends in Consumer Litigation Finance On the consumer side of the litigation finance market (predominantly personal injury settlement advances in the US), there have been a series of measures taken by various state legislatures that have served to limit and sometimes effectively eliminate the practice of settlement advances.  While these actions have been taken under the guise of consumer protection, the reality is that those states that have effectively eliminated the practice of consumer litigation finance have left thousands of injured parties in a very precarious position.  While legislators may have had the best of intentions in creating consumer protection legislation, the unintended consequences may be worse than the problem they were trying to solve. My biggest concern is that litigation finance becomes a political platform issue that results in legislative reform that ultimately harms consumers more than it helps, and then those same reforms make their way into the commercial side of the market.  This is an area where a strong association liaising with other closely aligned associations can combine their resources to protect their collective interests. Don’t Forget the Investors!  The recent Muddy Waters report accusing Burford Capital of significant governance and financial reporting shortcomings should be another call to action for the industry.  These accusations have the potential to be a serious setback for the industry given the stature of Burford in both the litigation finance industry as well as from a capital markets perspective. Capital is the lifeblood of the industry, and to the extent negative accusations effect the outlook for an industry, they also impact the industry’s ability to attract capital.  Accordingly, in addition to codes of conduct and industry best practices, an association should also bear in mind the best interests of those that provide the fuel to move the industry forward – namely, investors.  In this vein, an association should be providing best practices in financial disclosure and reporting to ensure that the industry is well understood by investors, and that financial results are clearly explained and standardized across managers, both in public and private markets. An association should also be liaising with securities and accounting professionals to ensure they understand the industry and the limitations associated with fair value accounting in a market which exhibits both idiosyncratic and binary risk.  Existing guidelines and principles from groups like the Institutional Limited Partners Association could also serve to benefit association members and investors. From a capital markets perspective, I believe the industry needs to position itself as a Socially Responsible Investing (“SRI”) asset class.  What other investment do you know of where you have the ability to change corporate behaviour for the better by providing capital to level the playing field.  Litigation finance is in the business of profitable social justice and the industry should ensure the investment community is aware of this fact. A strong industry association can undertake the necessary steps to ensure the investment community is aware of the social benefits associated with the asset class, while positioning the asset class appropriately in the context of investor portfolio construction. Industry is at a Critical Juncture  The US commercial litigation finance industry has been estimated by some as a $5-10B industry, although much of the industry’s capital sources are opaque and not well-tracked.  While the absolute number is not important, it is fair to say it is a relatively small market in the context of the US economy.  However, it is also a fast-growing market.  As markets gain notoriety and generate strong absolute returns, they can also be attractive for undesirable market entrants.  The industry is now large enough to be organized and capitalized in a manner that is meaningful and at a point in time in its evolution that will make it effective in ensuring that ‘undesirables’ don’t enter the market, to the benefit of all market participants. Self-Regulation  While the benefits of an industry association are generally well known, the commercial litigation finance industry also stands to benefit mainly through its own self-regulation.  The world of litigation finance is a relatively new area of finance and is one that is relatively complex, both from the perspective of capital provisioning, as well as the terms of the financial reporting of outcomes.  Further, commercial litigation finance solutions are highly customized for the case or portfolio of cases, and so the application of a ‘cookie cutter’ regulatory framework could be dangerous.  The last thing the industry needs is to be regulated by someone unknowledgeable about litigation finance.  The potential for unintended consequences, similar to what has happened in certain states on the consumer side, is a great example of why the industry should self-regulate. In addition, the legal profession is already highly regulated.  The profession itself has numerous rules covering ethics and rules of civil procedure.  In fact, one could argue that the last thing the profession needs is another rule.  What is more important to the consumers of litigation finance is transparency about how the product works, and an internal monitoring function to ensure adherence with existing rules.  These are best crafted by those involved in the daily workings of commercial litigation finance. Keep Calm and Organize! It’s times like these when an industry needs to come together to create a strong association to represent its interests, before succumbing to the pressure of interest groups with opposing objectives and motivations.  The commercial litigation finance industry is on the precipice of either sharp decline or its next growth phase, and the outcome may lie in its efforts to create an association to protect its interests and espouse the benefits of litigation finance.  The industry needs a unified voice to speak on behalf of and to the benefit of the collective community (be they funders, plaintiffs, lawyers or investors) and across geographic borders to ensure global alignment, to the extent viable.  While an Association can benefit from support by some of the larger funders in the community, their support, while very much welcome, should not prohibit the industry from moving ahead with an association, given that all funders will eventually join out of necessity. While the consumer side of the litigation finance industry has astutely created both the American Legal Finance Association (“ALFA”) and the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (“ARC”) to represent its best interests, it does not appear the same can be said for the larger commercial litigation finance market.  ALFA and ARC have proactively created a code of conduct, and have organized efforts to lobby, where appropriate, at the state and federal levels.  ALFA’s mandate includes being “committed to promoting fair, ethical, and transparent funding standards to protect legal funding consumers”, whereas ARC’s mandate includes advocating “…at the state and federal levels to recommend regulations that preserve consumer choice”.  In short, they are organized and they will benefit as a result of such organization despite increasing pressure on the industry at the state level.  In other jurisdictions where commercial litigation finance is more mature, industry associations have been created and are actively representing participants’ best interests, including the The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia and The Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales. In addition to fostering strong relationships with other global associations, the commercial litigation finance industry also needs to form strong bonds with consumer oriented associations, as the issues faced by both are often similar and arguably the consumer side can be viewed as ‘the canary in the coal mine’ for the broader industry as it provides financing to consumers which is often a more sensitive area of the market from a regulatory perspective. The commercial litigation finance industry has a fantastic story to tell, it just needs someone to communicate it with passion! For my part, I am discussing the concept with a variety of funders and intermediaries in the industry, and would like to hear from interested parties who are supportive of the creation of a US commercial litigation finance association.  I encourage readers to also read a recent article entitled “Litigation Finance Can and Should Protect its Reputation” (subscription required) written by Charles Agee of WestFleet Advisors, recently published in Law 360. About the author Edward Truant is an active investor in the global commercial litigation finance industry.  The author of this article can be reached at (416) 602-6593 or via email at etruant@gmail.com.

MIAMI, Aug. 27, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Brazil's Minister for Justice, Sérgio Moro, will give the keynote address at The OffshoreAlert Conference Latin America on Financial Intelligence & Investigations on September 16-17, 2019. Tickets can be purchased now at oacbrazil.com, where you will also find details about our agenda and speakers. Attendees will learn how to detect financial crime, recover hidden assets, obtain litigation funding to pursue claims, file whistleblowing claims, evaluate investment opportunities, and increase their chance of success in high-value, cross-border finance. Network with industry leaders in a stunning, five-star setting. Moro is known internationally for his role as a judge overseeing bribery and corruption cases arising from Operação Lava Jato, a.k.a. Operation Car Wash, including the trial of Brazil's former president Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. He is part of a powerful and influential line-up of speakers that also includes Latin American Herald Tribune publisher Russ Dallen, Brazil's Director of Asset Recovery & International Judicial Cooperation, Erika Marena; judges Paulo Furtado de Oliveira Filho and Moacyr Lobato de Campos Filho, prosecutors Vladimir Aras, Eronides Aparecido Rodrigues dos Santos, and Pedro Lupera Zerpa, politician Hugo Leal, whistleblower Jonathan Taylor, leading fraud and asset recovery attorneys, insolvency practitioners, journalists, and other experts on serious financial crime. Sessions include:

• An Introduction To International Asset Recovery;
• Asset Recovery Latin America: Tips From The Experts;
• Litigation Funding: How to Get Your Multi-Million Dollar Claims Funded By Third Parties;
• How Latin American Whistleblowers Can Make Millions From US Whistleblowing Programs;
• Brazil's Whistleblowing Laws: An Analysis of Existing & Proposed Legislation;
• The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Great Cryptocurrency Scam;
• Busting the Blockchain: How To Trace & Seize Virtual Assets & Evaluate Risk in a Pseudo-Anonymous World;
• Data Leaks: What The ICIJ's Panama & Paradise Papers Revealed About Latin America;
• Corruption & Asset Recovery: The Brazilian Perspective;
• Allen Stanford: An Update for Latin American Victims;
• Bankruptcy Fraud in Brazil: The Duties of Trustees;
• Inside Venezuela: An Overview of Fraud & Corruption;
• Cross-Border Insolvencies: Chapter 15 & Latin American Equivalents;
• Investing in Distressed Assets & Legal Claims: What You Need To Know; and
• Corruption & Money Laundering in Brazil: Problems & Solutions.

The OffshoreAlert Conference Latin America will be held at the magnificent Palácio Tangará hotel in Sāo Paulo, Brazil, on September 16-17, 2019. Presentations will be simultaneously interpreted in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. About OffshoreAlert Launched in 1997, Miami-based OffshoreAlert is the leading provider of investigative information about individuals and businesses operating in high-value, cross-border finance. We offer a subscription-based news and documents service at www.offshorealert.com and hold annual conferences on financial intelligence and investigations in Miami, Brazil, and London. OffshoreAlert has exposed more than 175 fraudulent schemes and helped prosecutors and regulators punish those responsible. FIFA's top officials were exposed at our Miami Conference in 2010 - 5 years before they were indicted for corruption. SOURCE OffshoreAlert

Related Links

https://www.offshorealert.com/

The following was contributed by Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM). The recent and well documented attacks by activist short-seller Muddy Waters on Burford Capital have brought litigation finance into the limelight. Whilst largely focussed on Burford’s accounting methods and corporate governance, the hedge fund’s accusations have raised concerns around the practices and legitimacy of the industry more broadly. One key question raised is around whether funders should even be listed on a public market. More pointedly, why can companies with questionable governance practices, an unpredictable revenue forecast, and operating in an industry with limited access to a secondary market against which claims can be evaluated, be listed? A lot of this is down to varying levels of understanding around Burford’s accounting practices, and indeed those of the wider industry. It is important to recognise that while there are many companies operating in the growing litigation finance space, they do not all do the same thing, or account the same way and shouldn’t all be tarred with the same brush. Fair value accounting – adopted by Burford and others under IFRS 9, is not an evil. But the application of it does matter. There are differing ways of adopting fair value accounting and how it is used is ultimately a management team decision. The accounting treatment for litigation projects varies across the industry and some approaches are more reliant on subjective judgement by management teams than others. For a clear representation, fair value numbers should always be given alongside historical cash accounting figures, so investors and counterparties are able to see the underlying performance of the business. It is vital that funders are fully transparent and have numbers that can be easily verified and valued externally. In practice, this entails the development of a fair value accounting method that can be scrutinised and tested by external parties. This probably results in lower valuations than management may have reached alone. But ultimately, as we’ve seen over the past fortnight, it is prudent to be cautious and conservative. The importance of disclosure to shareholders and clients cannot be underestimated. Subject to the right application of fair value accounting, there are several significant advantages to being listed - relating to transparency, regulation and access to capital - that make it a highly appropriate model for funders. Being listed on any stock exchange ensures a level of regulation and transparency that the private markets do not. We say this with some authority having been listed on both a main market (the Australian Securities Exchange) and the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”). Our experience has been that there is little difference in standards and accountability between the two. As a constituent of a public market, there is pressure to ensure that standards of corporate governance are upheld. Natural checks exist to hold companies to account in the form of selling investors, analysts publishing negative research, and, at the most extreme level, activists or short sellers publicly targeting companies. What’s difficult is that there is no formal regulation of the litigation finance sector, although its introduction in multiple jurisdictions is inevitable in time. It is hard to predict what form it will take, but I have no doubt that respectable funders will welcome it when it arrives, and we should do. In the meantime, our listed status provides a platform through which we can continue to meet regulatory standards. This is particularly important for firms like LCM looking to fund corporate portfolio transactions. Naturally, sophisticated corporates have stringent KYC protocols, and being listed demonstrates a level of oversight and transparency around where your capital is coming from, often in stark contrast to some. Furthermore, litigation finance is capital-intensive by its very nature and being listed provides funders with access to public sources of capital in the equity and bond markets. Equity raises provide funders with permanent capital to invest from the balance sheet, thereby avoiding any potential liquidity mismatches that might occur with some alternative fund structures. It also means investors of all types (from institutions to individuals) can gain access to the asset class’s attractive, uncorrelated returns. There will be a failure in this industry soon. This will be in large part due to the use of contingent revenues to hide loss positions, as well as funders being over reliant on one part of the market, such as single case investments. This is clearly not a sustainable business model and further illustrates the need for the considered use of fair value accounting. Recent events have been no help to the ongoing education process around the benefits of legal finance generally. It is a rude awakening that the practices of one business in our industry have raised so many questions around the governance and reporting of its peers. It will take time for the jitters to settle. In the meantime, the regulatory oversight that being a listed company provides should be seen as a positive. Nick Rowles-Davies is Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) and leads the company’s EMEA operations.

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 20, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, the Lawsuit Settlement Funding Company, announced that they have launched a new lawsuit finance division for commercial litigation, lawsuit loans or advances, and attorney loans for law firms. Commercial litigation cases can be extremely complex and require expansive resources for both plaintiffs and law firms to fight. Legal-Bay feels this is an under-served market and plans to build a new division to accommodate the needs in the market. Commercial litigation loans were created to assist plaintiffs level the playing field against deeper pocket defendants, who can simply outspend them and make winning a case more difficult. Legal-Bay's experience involving complex litigation will give hope to plaintiffs and middle market law firms that resources are available to prosecute a successful claim. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We are exciting to be expanding from our traditional personal injury and mass tort litigation to much larger commercial litigation involving complex cases that need large funding amounts. Typically, these cases have minimum requests of anywhere from $100K to $20MM and take more time to evaluate, and our network of experienced underwriters and investment bankers are eager to begin funding. We believe this is a service that will aid many plaintiffs and law firms in their quest for justice." Legal-Bay has outlined a nationwide network of outside consultants and strategic partners to properly service their clients. Their network involves organizations from New York NY, New Jersey NJ, Texas TX, Florida FL, Arizona AZ, Nevada NV, California CA, Illinois IL, Minnesota MN, Pennsylvania PA, and Connecticut CT. Legal-Bay currently funds car accidents, personal injury cases, wrongful termination, medical malpractice, clergy sex abuse, discrimination, trips and slip and fall cases, mass tort litigations and many commercial litigation cases. However, the commercial litigation funding division will focus on larger commercial litigation cases or products such as: Whistleblower or Qui Tam Cases, Breach of Contract, Executive Wrongful Termination Cases, Judgment or Verdict on Appeal Cases, Attorney or Law Firm Loans or Financing of Case Costs up to $20MM, Intellectual Property Cases, Estate or Partnership Unwinds, Franchise Protection, Franchise Protection, Security Fraud or Finra Arbitration Cases, Real Estate Cases, Partnership Fraud, Insurance Bad Faith Claims, Patent or Copyright Infringement Cases, Hospital or Surgery Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death, and any large civil lawsuits where the plaintiffs have already filed complaints.    If you are looking for pre-settlement cash from your commercial litigation lawsuit, large lawsuit loan for general working capital, or to inquire about specific case costs, please apply at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com Legal-Bay has now secured additional funding capital for these and other types of commercial litigation cases, and encourages plaintiffs or law firms that have been denied funding in the past not to be discouraged about applying with Legal-Bay. Most of Legal-Bay's commercial litigation funding programs are non-recourse lawsuit cash advances, also known as case funding. None of the programs should be considered to be a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, pre-settlement loans or a pre settlement loan; however each funding amount is different and traditional lawsuit loan terms may apply depending on the type of funding and jurisdiction. To learn more, or to apply for a commercial litigation cash advance, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.  

Bentham IMF Capital Limited (Bentham) is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has agreed to hear an appeal in a matter that Bentham is funding. As a result, Canada’s highest court will hear arguments for the first time relating to the important role of modern litigation funding in providing access to justice for parties, including those who are insolvent or bankrupt. The SCC will consider certain important questions, including if and how an insolvency court can approved a litigation funding arrangement (a case summary provided by the SCC is available here). This appeal does not directly relate to the merits of the underlying litigation that Bentham is funding, which is a claim for approximately $228 million by two insolvent entities (f.k.a. Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc. and Bluberi Group Inc.) at al. against Callidus Capital Corporation, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Newton Glassman et al. In a typical year, about 500 applications are made for permission to bring an appeal before the SCC, with the Court granting about 10% of such applications. In order for a matter to be granted permission, the SCC must be satisfied that it raises questions of public importance. A hearing before the SCC in this matter will likely take place in early 2020. For more information about this decision, including copies of court filings, please contact Bentham IMF at the coordinates below. Bentham background Bentham is the Canadian arm of publicly-traded IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF), which has 14 offices in Australia, Canada, the US, Asia and Europe. IMF has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative litigation funding solutions and has established a diverse portfolio of litigation funding assets, assisting clients with meritorious claims across a range of industries and jurisdictions. As a pioneer of litigation funding in Australia since 2001, IMF has played a significant role in the development of a global industry. IMF has a highly experienced litigation funding team overseeing its investments. As of 31 December 2018, it has achieved a 90% success rate across 184 completed cases, thereby generating AUD$2.3 billion in recoveries.

This report studies the Litigation Funding and Expenses Market size by players, regions, product types and end industries, history data 2019-2026 and forecast data 2019-2026; This report also studies the global market competition landscape, market drivers and trends, opportunities and challenges, risks and entry barriers, sales channels, distributors and Porter's Five Forces Analysis. “Litigation Funding and Expenses Market” Size and Outlook 2025 report provide detailed insight into aspects of controlling and enhancing market growth by classifying food additives in the correct way. The research report provides thorough information on market share analysis, market size, consumer volume, key market sectors, diverse regions, key market participants and industry/business tactics. The competitive scenario section of the report provides the major participants operating in the market. Request Sample Copy of this Report at- https://bit.ly/2OW9KxZ Key Strategic Players: Sydney-based IMF Bentham Ltd., Apex, and... This report lists the details of the production and consumption patterns of the business in addition to the current scenarios in the Litigation Funding and Expenses Market and trends in this industry. Also, the market report makes some important proposals for a new project of Commercial and Corporate Card Industry before evaluating its feasibility. Market size is calculable in terms of revenue (USD Million) production volume during the forecast period. Geographically, the Litigation Funding and Expenses market is divided into seven major regions: North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia Pacific, Japan and the Middle East and Africa. North America and Europe have accounted for the top share of total producing revenue across the world due to the quantity of small, midsized and large enterprises in both the regions are very high. The Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market offer data in the concluding part that is an assessment of the significant performance of the market is indicated by various analysis tools and comprehensive research reports. In conclusion, this report clearly shows all the facts of the market without reference to other research reports or data sources. Reasons to buy this report: • Assesses 2019-2026 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market development trends with the recent trends and SWOT analysis. • Find the most up to date information available on all active and planned Litigation Funding and Expenses Market globally. • Understand regional Litigation Funding and Expenses Market supply scenario. • Assess the production processes, major issues, and solutions to mitigate the development risk. • Recognize opportunities in the market industry with the help of upcoming projects and capital expenditure outlook. • Facilitate decision making on the basis of strong historic and forecast of market capacity data. Get Complete Report: https://bit.ly/2OW9KxZ Table of Contents: Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Report 2019 to 2025 Chapter One Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Overview Chapter Two Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Data Analysis Chapter Three Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Technical Data Analysis Chapter Four Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Government Policy and News Chapter Five Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Manufacturing Process and Cost Structure Chapter Six 2013-2019 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Productions Supply Sales Demand Market Status and Forecast Chapter Seven Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Key Manufacturers Chapter Eight Up and Down Stream Industry Analysis Chapter Nine: Marketing Strategy - Litigation Funding and Expenses Market y Analysis Chapter Ten 2019-2025 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Development Trend Analysis Chapter Eleven Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market New Project Investment Feasibility Analysis ……………………………………………..Continued Contact Us: Sanjay Jain Manager - Partner Relations & International Marketing www.reportsandmarkets.com info@reportsandmarkets.com Ph: +44-020-3286-9338 (UK) Ph: +1-214-736-7666 (US) About Us: Market research is the new buzzword in the market, which helps in understanding the market potential of any product in the market. Reports And Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world. This release was published on openPR.

PENSACOLA, Fla., Aug. 12, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they will be the first lawsuit funding company to begin offering cash advances for veterans who are involved in the 3M earplug litigation. 3M Corporation has come under fire recently for their Combat Arms brand earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2). The Minnesota-based company is being accused of allegedly falsifying testing documents and knowingly manufacturing and distributing substandard earplugs to the U.S. military. The earplugs didn't maintain a tight enough seal, thereby allowing dangerous levels of sound to invade the wearer's ears, causing discomfort, pain, and in some cases, loss of balance, ringing in the ears or tinnitus, and permanent hearing damage. 3M has settled with the Department of Justice for $9MM regarding the allegedly defective earplugs. The company did not admit any fault in the settlement. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Although this litigation is in its very early stages, our experience in the mass tort industry tells us that these claims against 3M are strong. 3M will continue to fight for a long time. Regardless, we are going to begin funding these cases to help any veterans who may need an emergency cash advance." An MDL was created in early 2019 in the Northern District of Florida, and is still in the very early stages. No bellwether trials have been scheduled yet, and additional cases are still being added to the docket. It's possible that thousands of military personnel may have been affected. If you're involved in a 3M earplugs lawsuit and are looking for presettlement cash now, you can apply at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com. In order to receive funding, you must have hearing damage and already have an attorney retained. If you do not have an attorney, Legal-Bay works with the top 3M law firms and lawyers in the country and can give you a referral. All of Legal-Bay funding programs are risk-free as you only repay the advance if your case is successful. The non-recourse advance is not a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, pre settlement loan, or pre-settlement loans. Please apply online: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

PERTH, AUSTRALIA, 8 AUGUST 2019: In response to a (short) report issued by a US investment firm on 7 August 2019 on Burford Capital Limited (Burford), leading global dispute resolution financier and industry founder, IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF), notes the following in relation to IMF’s accounting policies and disclosures. “There are fundamental differences between IMF Bentham and other funders. Our investors understand and value this and our investor base now includes some of the largest, most sophisticated institutional investors in the world,” says CEO and MD, Andrew Saker. Accounting treatment of Litigation Finance Assets

• The accounting treatments adopted by IMF and some of its competitors vary materially.
• IMF’s litigation funding assets, and those of investment vehicles managed or advised by IMF, are classified as intangible assets and therefore, in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are recognised at cost throughout the life of the investment and are subject to impairment testing. IMF does not record any unrealised gains attributable to market value adjustments of its litigation assets during the life of the investment.
• IMF recognises any gain on assets at the time of completion of an investment. Losses on investments are recognised at the earlier of either negative developments which impact potential recoveries via an asset impairment, or from a loss at trial.
• IMF’s conservative and transparent approach removes potentially-artificial estimations of asset values and offers investors comfort in the integrity and stability of the reported results.
• IMF prepares its accounts in accordance with the Corporations Act and complies with the Australian Accounting Standards and the IFRS.

IMF’s key metrics

• As stated in prior ASX announcements, IMF calculates its aggregate Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on concluded investments only (excluding any partial conclusions), withdrawals and overheads. These metrics include losses on concluded cases.

Funding for Future Investments and strategic capital management

• A substantial capital position is essential in the dispute finance industry to underwrite investments.
• During FY19, IMF significantly increased its capital reserves with the launch of two new Funds (Fund 4, Fund 5) with aggregate capital commitments of US$1 billion (including commitments from IMF of US$200 million). This external capital secures IMF’s medium-term funding requirements for its current and future litigation funding investments.
• In FY19, IMF also completed an equity placement raising approximately $75 million, refreshed the terms of its listed bonds pushing maturity out to FY23 and raising a further $41 million from the issue of new bonds. IMF also currently expects to receive income of approximately $70 million in FY20 from conditional and in-principle settlements which have occurred since 1 July 2019 (of which $23.5 million relates to on-balance sheet investments and $45.7 million reflects fund investments).

About IMF Bentham Ltd IMF Bentham is one of the leading global dispute resolution financiers, headquartered in Australia and with offices in the US and Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK. IMF Bentham has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative funding solutions and has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of dispute resolution funding assets. IMF Bentham has a highly experienced dispute resolution funding team overseeing its investments. We have an exceptional success rate over 187 completed investments and have recovered over A$1.4 billion for clients since 2001. IMF now has close to A$2 billion in combined funds under management globally, making us a strong ally for our funded clients. For further information regarding IMF Bentham and its activities, please visit www.imf.com.au.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Aug. 5, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- ArbiLex today announced the launch of its Arbitrator Analytics Platform, which is transforming the practice of international arbitration by ranking arbitrators through a proprietary reasoning system to enhance decision-making by law firms and litigation funds. ArbiLex has successfully tested the efficacy of its algorithms with leading global law firms and litigation funds seeking a competitive edge in multi-billion-dollar cases around the world. International arbitration is one of the fastest-growing practice areas for global law firms and litigation funds. Last year, Singapore and Hong Kong became the latest jurisdictions to liberalize the entry of litigation finance into international arbitration, broadening beyond traditional venues such as the United States, where the litigation finance market size is estimated to be between $50 billion to $100 billion. "In the era of global litigation finance, international arbitration cases are emerging as a multi-trillion-dollar asset class. Under this new paradigm, the status quo of relying solely on anecdotal evidence and qualitative memos is insufficient. When the stakes are all-or-nothing, there needs to be a more quantitative, coherent and explainable framework in assessing deal risk," said ArbiLex Founder and CEO Isabel Yang, a statistician, economist and graduate of Harvard Law School with experience in law and policy across four continents. "ArbiLex's analytics solution leverages expert knowledge and probabilistic modeling to inform high-value strategic decisions, starting with the selection of arbitral tribunals, which is arguably the highest-value decision in any arbitration case," Yang added. Yang first tested the concept of ArbiLex in the Harvard Innovation Labs before forming the team earlier this year. Since then, the company has attracted world-class engineers, AI and machine learning scientists, and designers from organizations including Google, MIT, Harvard University, and IDEO. Law firms and litigation funds consider the application of ArbiLex to international arbitration as a potential game-changer. Yas Banifatemi, Partner and Co-Head of the International Arbitration practice at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: "Artificial intelligence is growing fast as a disruptive technology in the practice of international arbitration. ArbiLex represents a key initiative and has the ambition – and means – to become a leading resource in the field." Tom Glasgow, Chief Investment Officer for Asia at global litigation fund IMF Bentham, said: "ArbiLex brings data-driven intelligence to difficult and critical decisions like tribunal selection, providing an important objective overlay to the legal team's analysis. This will likely become a highly sought-after risk management tool for funders and commercial parties alike." Benjamin Roe, Lead Knowledge Lawyer for Global Disputes at the law firm Baker McKenzie, said of ArbiLex: "The kind of analysis provided by ArbiLex has the potential to transform arbitration." Mark Beckett, International Arbitration Partner at the law firm Cooley LLP, and an adviser to ArbiLex, added: "ArbiLex's use of AI will help counsel and clients test their positions, adopt the best strategy and provide important feedback on when it makes sense to fight and when it makes sense to settle. The array of tools significantly enhances the ability of counsel to help claimholders use the process intelligently and achieve better outcomes." SOURCE ArbiLex

Lawsuit Loans Market Industry Research Report focuses Market Size, Share, Growth, Manufacturers and Forecast to 2026. This Market Research Report primarily based upon factors on which the companies complete in the market and this factor which is useful and valuable to the business. This report has published stating that the Global Lawsuit Loans Market is anticipated to expand significantly at Million US$ in 2019 and is projected to reach Million US$ by 2026, at a CAGR of during the forecast period. Sample Report with Latest Industry Trends @: https://www.qyreports.com/request-sample/?report-id=221027 Lawsuit Loans helps the enterprises to monitor and maintain the overall functioning of the building infrastructure with quick response to any system failure. Globally, enterprises are continuously focusing on a sustainable model for facilities to reduce the carbon footprint of their organization. Top Key Companies Players Analyzed in this Report are: Peachtree Financial Solutions, DRB Capital, J.G. Wentworth Structured Settlements, Oasis Legal Finance, Fair Rate Funding, High Rise Financial, LawCash, Mayfield Settlement Funding, Nova Legal Funding, Pravati Capital Lawsuit Loans Market: Reports Intellect represents the detail analysis of the parent market based on elite players, present, past and futuristic data which will offer as a profitable guide for all Lawsuit Loans Market competitors. The overall analysis Advanced Lawsuit Loans Market covers an overview of the industry policies that Lawsuit Loans Market significantly, the cost structure of products available the in the market, and their manufacturing chain. The scope of the Lawsuit Loans Market report is as follows the report provides information on growth segments and opportunities for investment and Benchmark performance against key competitors. Geographically, the global mobile application market has been segmented into four regions such as North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and the rest of the world. Get Reasonable Discount on this Premium Report @: https://www.qyreports.com/ask-for-discount?report-id=221027 Finally, all aspects of the Global Lawsuit Loans Market are quantitatively as well qualitatively assessed to study the Global as well as regional market comparatively. This market study presents critical information and factual data about the market providing an overall statistical study of this market on the basis of market drivers, limitations and its future prospects. The report supplies the international economic competition with the assistance of Porter’s Five Forces Analysis and SWOT Analysis. Following are the List of Chapter Covers in the Lawsuit Loans Market:

1. Lawsuit Loans Market Overview
2. Global Economic Impact on Industry
3. Global Market Competition by Manufacturers
4. Global Market Analysis by Application
5. Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/Traders
6. Market Effect Factors Analysis
7. Global Lawsuit Loans Market Forecast

About Us We at, QYReports, a leading market research report published accommodate more than 4,000 celebrated clients worldwide putting them at advantage in today’s competitive world with our understanding of research. Our list of customers includes prestigious Chinese companies, multinational companies, SME’s and private equity firms whom we have helped grow and sustain with our fact-based research. Our business study covers a market size of over 30 industries offering unfailing insights into the analysis to reimagine your business. We specialize in forecasts needed for investing in a new project, to revolutionize your business, to become more customer centric and improve the quality of output. Contact: QYReports Jones John +(1) 786-292-8164 204, Professional Center, 7950 NW 53rd Street, Miami, Florida 33166 sales@qyreports.com http://www.qyreports.com

Global Lawsuit Loans Market Report 2019 is a professional and in-depth research report on the world's major regional market conditions of the Lawsuit Loans industry, focusing on the main regions (North America, Europe and Asia) and the main countries (United States, Germany, Japan and China). The report firstly introduced the Lawsuit Loans market basics: definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain overview; industry policies and plans; product specifications; manufacturing processes; cost structures and so on. Then it analyzed the world's main region market conditions, including the product price, profit, capacity, production, capacity utilization, supply, demand and industry growth rate etc. In the end, the report introduced new project SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, and investment return analysis. Get sample copy of this report@  https://bit.ly/2LSDBVP Some of the key players operating in this market include: Peachtree Financial Solutions,DRB Capital,J.G. Wentworth Structured Settlements,Oasis Legal Finance,Fair Rate Funding,High Rise Financial,LawCash,Mayfield Settlement Funding,Nova Legal Funding,Pravati Capital The report includes six parts, dealing with: 1) Basic information 2) The Asia Lawsuit Loans market. 3) The North American Lawsuit Loans industry. 4) The European Lawsuit Loans industry. 5) Market entry and investment feasibility. 6) The report conclusion. Reasons for Buying this Report This report provides pin-point analysis for changing competitive dynamics It provides a forward looking perspective on different factors driving or restraining market growth It provides a six-year forecast assessed on the basis of how the market is predicted to grow It helps in understanding the key product segments and their future It provides pin point analysis of changing competition dynamics and keeps you ahead of competitors It helps in making informed business decisions by having complete insights of market and by making in-depth analysis of market segments TABLE OF CONTENT: 1 Industry Overview of Lawsuit Loans Market 2 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 3 Technical Data and Manufacturing Plants Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 4 Global Lawsuit Loans Market Overview 5 Lawsuit Loans Market Regional Market Analysis 6 Global (2015-2019) Lawsuit Loans Market Segment Market Analysis (by Type) 7 Global (2015-2019) Lawsuit Loans Market Segment Market Analysis (by Application) 8 Major Manufacturers Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 9 Development Trend of Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 10 Lawsuit Loans Marketing Type Analysis 11 Consumers Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 12 Conclusion of the Global Lawsuit Loans Market Professional Survey Report 2019 Get Complete Report@ https://bit.ly/2LSDBVP Contact Us: Sanjay Jain Manager - Partner Relations & International Marketing www.reportsandmarkets.com info@reportsandmarkets.com Ph: +44-020-3286-9338 (UK) Ph: +1-214-736-7666 (US) About Us: Market research is the new buzzword in the market, which helps in understanding the market potential of any product in the market. Reports And Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world. This release was published on openPR.