Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3272 Articles
Consumer

RD Legal Files Opening Brief in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal

Consumer legal funder RD Legal has filed its opening brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. The funder is appealing Judge Loretta Preska's June 2018 order to void its funding agreements with ex-NFL players and members of the September 11th Victim's Compensation Fund, on the basis that the funding agreements were in effect assignments, and therefore void under the anti-assignment clause of the NFL settlement agreement, and the federal Anti-Assignment Act. As reported in National Law Review, Judge Preska subsequently found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cannot bring its case against RD Legal because its structure of being led by a single director who is only removable for cause by the President of the United States is unconstitutional. Judge Preska dismissed the CFPB from the case, and several weeks later followed that up with a dismissal of the New York Attorney General (NYAG) from the case. RD Legal is now appealing Judge Preska's ruling that its transactions violate the anit-assignment clauses. Recently, the 9th Circuit upheld the CFPB's constitutionality, and the 5th Circuit is hearing oral arguments in another case involving the organization's constitutionality. RD Legal is asking the 2nd Circuit to uphold Judge Preska's decision that the CFPB's structure is unconstitutional.
Commercial

Litigation Funding for the Restaurant Industry

Recently, Conagra Brands and Kraft Heinz sued Tyson Foods and other chicken suppliers for allegedly conspiring to inflate prices. That comes on the back of a large antitrust claim agains the pork industry, alleging price collusion since 2009. All of this has a major impact not just on the food processing and packaging industries, but on the restaurant industry as well - given that a full 1/3 of all restaurant costs are related to food inputs. With slim margins and a true David v. Goliath dynamic, the restaurant industry is ripe for litigation funding. As reported in Modern Restaurant Magazine, the restaurant industry is one where tight margins abound. Any excess costs must be passed onto the consumer, which then impacts sales and revenue. So when large food manufacturers allegedly conspire to inflate prices, restaurants feel the heat more than anybody. Since many restaurants don't have the capital to pursue legal claims, it can be difficult to assert their rights. Additionally, many restaurants want to continue ongoing relationships with their suppliers, hence they are loathe to sue - especially when they don't necessarily have the capital to back up a long, arduous legal claim. With access-to-justice such an issue in the restaurant industry, it makes sense for litigation funders to fill the gap. Any industry with limited (or non-existent) legal budgets can benefit from litigation funding, and the restaurant industry is in exactly that position. Asserting one's rights against suppliers and vendor is a tough call for any business, especially one as precariously positioned as a restaurant. Partnering with funders empowers these businesses by providing them the leverage they need to take on multi-billion dollar corporations who allegedly conspired to increase their costs.
Commercial

What Sorts of Questions Are Institutional Investors Asking About Litigation Funding?

Institutional investors continue to pour money into the litigation finance sector. The prospect of attractive returns, uncorrelated to broader equity/bond markets, which may actually increase post-recession given the influx of legal claims likely to arise explains why institutional capital is flowing steadily into the space. But what concerns do institutional investors have about litigation funding, and what questions are they asking? As reported in Above the Law, a panel at IMN's recent litigation funding conference covered exactly this topic. Namely, the key concerns that arise when institutional investors approach the space. Firstly, there is the issue of competition. Most funders currently offer healthy, double-digit IRR. Yet, one question many institutional investors have, is can those returns remain steady as more competition enters the space? Drew Kelly of Delta Capital Partners noted that he has been in the space for several years, and hasn't seen a measurable difference in competition for claims, suggesting that demand is keeping up with - or perhaps even outpacing - supply. Additionally, as Lee Drucker of Lake Whillans pointed out, the litigation funding market remains highly inefficient - as do all nascent industries - which means there is plenty of opportunity for funders to differentiate remain competitive. There is also the issue of conflict of interest. The panel mentioned a recent example where an educational endowment decided not to invest in a funder because they were concerned they might end up funding a lawsuit against the school. The panel agreed this concern is legitimate, yet many institutions are coming to terms with it and deciding to invest anyway, given the attractive returns available. Brian Roth of EJF Capital commented that as the industry grows more mainstream, those institutions that do have such disqualifying concerns will eschew funding altogether, meaning funders should encounter less and less of these issues going forward.
Commercial Special Features

Term Sheet Exclusivity & MAC Clauses: Good or Bad Things for the Funding Industry?

At last week's 2nd Annual Financing, Structuring and Investing in Litigation Finance conference, hosted by IMN in New York City, the third panel of the day discussed the topic of term sheet exclusivity. Namely, should funders mandate an exclusivity period whereby the claimant cannot approach or discuss potential funding, while the initial funder performs due diligence on the case? The panel was moderated by Andrew Langhoff of Red Bridges Advisors, and comprised of Caline Mouawad (King & Spalding), Douglas Gruener (Levenfeld Pearlstein), Ross Wallin (Curiam Capital), Boris Ziser (Schulte Roth & Zabel) and Joshua Metlzer (Woodsford Litigation Funding). Langhoff began by explaining that he understands the obvious reason behind including an exclusivity period. That said, he sees two "insidious consequences" with its inclusion. The first is what he termed "the damaged goods problem." Essentially, there is no certainty that the deal gets done during the exclusivity period, and any claimant who shoots down a funder's advances during that time may have to come crawling back, at which point they might already be labelled 'damaged goods.' The second issue plays off the damaged goods concept. Since funders are well aware that claimants can't exactly go crawling back to funders whom they shot down, the funder with the exclusivity can afford to play hardball. Some will drag out the exclusivity period and offer more onerous terms than what was agreed upon initially (citing material changes to the claim. which may or may not be legitimately 'material' -- more on that below). Joshua Meltzer of Woodsford was the first to respond, saying he agreed with Langhoff's contention that there are problems inherent in an exclusivity period. He has personally seen scenarios where a funder has used its leverage during an exclusivity period to offer "radically different" term sheets than what was agreed upon. Bors Ziser of Schulte Roth & Zabel responded by pointing out that "that cuts both ways." Plaintiffs can always come back to the funder and claim that something wasn't in the term sheet, and then walk away. The funder is the one who spent time, money and energy diligencing the case during the exclusivity period. Ziser also mentioned how claimants can use their term sheet to extract better terms from other funders whom they engage with. That might violate the NDA agreement, but so what? When has an NDA ever been enforced..?  (It is perhaps ironic that Meltzer, the litigation funder, agreed with Langhoff that funders often exploit the exclusivity period, while Ziser, the attorney, pointed out how claimants can be the ones who exploit the situation). It was here that Langhoff highlighted the break fee which many funders are enacting, in lieu of an exclusivity period. The break fee enables claimants to discuss terms with other funders, however once the term sheet is signed, claimant will owe the funder a certain amount if the deal isn't done for any reason. A break fee ensures that funders are at least compensated for their time and effort diligencing the claim. Yet there are issues of collectability around a break fee. How will funders enforce that? One idea that was mentioned was that funders may collect the break fee upfront, and simply return the amount along with the funding once the deal is done. Of course, claimants and law firms won't exactly like hearing that they have to pay an upfront break fee, and that might subordinate a funder in the queue, assuming there are a handful of funders who are itching to do the deal. The question was never resolved, and it's likely that many funders are currently grappling with this very issue. At this point, the conversation bled into a discussion on whether funders can indeed pull funding based on a material change in the case. Boris Ziser pointed out that often times term sheets are intentionally ambiguous - stating that funders can pull funding if there is a 'material adverse change' in a case, also known as a MAC Clause. But what constitutes a material adverse change? Ross Wallin of Curiam noted that enforcement of MAC Clauses is often a last resort on the part of funders, who prefer to bring all parties together and hash out any differences, especially given that there is repetitional risk at play here. "If you have a reputation of firing that bullet too aggressively, you re going to find yourself starved of opportunities," Wallin explained. In other words, funders with a reputation for pulling funding based on vague terminology might find themselves on the outs the next time a potential claim comes down the pike. The world of funding - while growing - is still quite small, and everyone seems to know each other well enough that  reputational risk is considered a major potential hazard. So while issues like exclusivity periods and MAC clauses may seem like good ideas - and in fact be very practical, as well as standard operating procedure in financial transactions - the reality of reputational risk which funders face often precludes either their enforcement, or their very inclusion in the term sheets in the first place. One thing for funders to keep an eye on is industry commoditization. Should the industry commoditize further (as some predict), that implies that claimants and law firms will hold more of the cards during a potential transaction. Funders who offer onerous terms like exclusivity and MAC clauses may be unknowingly hurting their chances, as they compete with a growing pool of competitors.
Announcements Commercial

Litigation Capital Management (AIM:LIT) announces funding of corporate portfolio transaction

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT) (LCM), a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, announces it has signed an agreement to fund a corporate portfolio transaction with a leading global aviation business.

The global aviation business portfolio transaction will:

  • fund 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the corporate;
  • be for an initial five-year rolling period with optionality to extend the number of cases and the size of finance available; and
  • be the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement announced by the Company on 25 March 2019.

LCM remains one of very few litigation funders globally to have executed corporate portfolio transactions and the only one in the industry actively originating and executing these types of transactions. This type of investment remains an area of focus and growth for the Company. The current pipeline includes a further eight corporate portfolio transactions. The Company intends to make further announcements in the future as and when further agreements are signed.

Commenting on the new corporate portfolio transaction, Patrick Moloney, Chief Executive Officer of LCM, said:

 “We are delighted to be announcing our second corporate portfolio transaction and the first originating from our global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm. This clearly demonstrates the positive and mutually beneficial nature of the agreement and our ability to generate business through our network of trusted partners.

LCM possesses one of the most experienced teams at originating and executing global corporate portfolio transactions and we will continue to focus on providing litigation financing solutions to corporate clients. This is a key growth area for LCM and a point of differentiation for us, especially given the highly skilled and experienced team we have in London, led by Nick Rowles-Davies.”

Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of LCM, said:

“This global funding deal for an aviation business demonstrates our ability to convert corporate portfolio transactions and is exactly the strategy we outlined at the time of our listing in London in December 2018. Aviation is one of many sectors that will benefit from corporate portfolio funding, the continued awareness of legal financing solutions and how legal financing can minimise risk for corporates across sectors. Our pipeline includes eight further corporate portfolio projects across various sectors and we continue to refine our knowledge and experience while contributing to LCM’s future growth. 

We have refined and developed a strategy to originate business through targeted partnerships. This corporate portfolio transaction is a positive endorsement of how we conduct our business generation and the relationship we have developed under the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm.”

About LCM

Litigation Capital Management (“LCM”) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-case and portfolios across class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection, active project management and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM has been listed on AIM since December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT. www.lcmfinance.com

Consumer Special Features

Why is There an Assault on the Poorest Amongst Us?

This article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). “Millions of Americans Are Just 1 Paycheck Away From ‘Financial Disaster’” was the title in a recent story in Barron’s. The article stated that 51% of working adults in the US would need to access savings to cover necessities if they missed more than one paycheck. That is the equivalent of over 78.2 million Americans. The story went on to state that “roughly two-thirds of households earning less than $30,000 annually and Hispanic households would not be able to cover basic living expenses.” That is the equivalent of over 101.2 million Americans. Consumer Legal Funding is a vital resource for those very Americans. Funding allows the 101.2 million Americans who cannot cover basic living expenses to bridge that gap while their legal claims make their way through the system. With some cases taking several months – if not years – to settle, these Americans need help today. Consumer Legal Funding allows them to pay their mortgages, put food on their tables and keep a roof over their heads while the Insurance industry slow-walks their legal claims. Perhaps the most chilling revelation here is that the Insurance industry, led by the US Chamber of Commerce, supported legislation to eliminate Consumer Legal Funding in two of the top-10 poorest states in the country: first in Arkansas, where 15.4% of the population lives in poverty, and just last week in West Virginia, where the poverty rate is 17.7%. What is even more striking, is that those are two of the top-10 hungriest states in the US. In West Virginia, 14.9% of the population goes hungry, and in Arkansas the rate is 17.4%. The elimination of Consumer Legal Funding in these two states was implemented merely to increase Insurance industry profits, and force consumers to accept lowball offers (as an aside: State Farm ended 2018 with a net worth of over $100 Billion). Thanks to the latest legislation that went into effect on June 5, 2019 in West Virginia, residents who need Consumer Legal Funding assistance will no longer be able to access it. Take for example, Patressa from Barboursville, WV, who said: “I am completely broke financially due to a car accident. I have medical needs and doctor appointments that I need to go to.” Now Patressa is among the 1.8 million residents of West Virginia who no longer have access to alternative funds while their cases are pending in the legal system. As a result, Patressa will be forced to accept an offer for less than what she deserves. One of the most heartbreaking responses to the recent legislation comes from Victoria of Clarksburg, WV, who stated quite candidly that she “needed the money so I could have a place to live.” Who can the 4.8 million Patressa’s and Victoria’s of West Virginia and Arkansas turn to for help? How will they meet their medical needs? How will they find a place to live? Eric Schuller President Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)
Commercial

Litigation Fund Provides Rosenblatt With Greater Flexibility

UK law firm Rosenblatt went public last year, and in the process announced plans to open a litigation funding arm. The law firm now has five cases under consideration, and CEO Nicola Foulston touts her firm's litigation fund with providing increased flexibility when designing alternative fee arrangements. As reported in This is Money, Foulston is attempting to leverage the relaxed rules around ownership of law firms in the UK. Since 2007, law firms have been allowed to list publicly, and Foulston believes that equity-based PLC structures are the future of the law firm industry. She is also betting heavily on litigation funding, setting up a dedicated funding arm with a portion of the capital raised during the IPO. Rosenblatt can now afford to be selective on the types of cases it accepts. The law firm can work on a no-win, no-fee basis, or fully or partially fund the claims themselves via their dedicated funding arm. Foulston is also looking to expand into other niche areas of the law, including taxation, forensic accounting and financial crime. The law firm still carries a majority of the £13MM it raised during its IPO, and is expected to sharply deploy capital in the near-term to fuel Foulston's growth ambitions.
Announcements Commercial

Commercial Litigation Crowdfunding Platform, AxiaFunder and Solomonic litigation analytics, partner to deliver a new generation of financing decision-making

Commercial Litigation Crowdfunding Platform, Axiafunder and Solomonic litigation analytics have agreed a partnership where Solomonic will provide AxiaFunder with the statistical data to support their case evaluation and due diligence Workflows. Cormac Leech, founder and CEO of AxiaFunder said, “for us moving to a process for determining funding that is based on rigorous data is critical to our business model and Solomonic’s data and analysis in unrivalled in the UK market.” He added, “Our goal is to transform litigation funding by introducing a wider group of sophisticated investors to litigation assets that traditionally haven’t been funded in this way. To do that we have to have more dynamic case evaluation supported by data, rather than relying solely on the traditional approaches still in use in the sector. “ AxiaFunder adopts a comprehensive, six-part review in selecting cases eligible for funding by investors, with the prospects for success fundamental to the decision. AxiaFunder will use Solomonic’s robust and extensive Commercial data set and outcome calculators to help determine relevant base rates for the claim type both to inform the review and as part of their due diligence before any claim is promoted to potential investors. Gideon Cohen, Solomonic co-founder commented: “we are delighted to be partnering with AxiaFunder. Their approach is transformational and because our data is so rigorous and brings so much additional value, will make a meaningful contribution to the proposition they offer to investors in litigation financing.
Commercial

Lawdragon Recognizes Andrew Saker and Allison Chock of IMF Bentham

Lawdragon, a provider of free online guides for US-based legal news, has named IMF Bentham CEO Andrew Saker and Bentham IMF (the US subsidiary of IMF Bentham) CIO Allison Chock as two of its 100 Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists. As reported in Lawdragon, IMF Bentham has been featured in the online guide each of the last four consecutive years. The funder maintains 14 offices across Australia, Asia, Canada, the UK and the US, and manages billions of dollars of AUM. Having helped pioneer litigation funding in Australia in 2001, IMF Bentham expanded into the US a decade later, and now boasts multiple offices across the country and in Canada. The funder is also one of just a handful of industry participants that is publicly-traded. In his interview with Lawdragon, Saker highlighted IMFs capital resources, strategic case insights and assistance with project execution as its core differentiators. He also highlighted the experienced former litigators and in-house counsel who serve as employees of the firm. Over an 18 year lifespan, IMF boasts a 90% success rate in the claims it finances. According to Saker, IMF clients have retained an average rate of 62% of all proceeds.
Commercial

Another Billionaire Secretly Finances Litigation – This Time Over a Jeff Koons Scuplture

First there was Peter Thiel, who backed Hulk Hogan's successful lawsuit against Gawker, and now there's Ronald Perelman. Perelman, who runs the conglomerate MacAndrews & Forbes Group (MAFG), has been secretly funding Hollywood Produer Joel Silver's lawsuit against art gallery owner Larry Gagosian. The funding deal was uncovered by Gagosian's lawyers, who wrote a letter to the judge seeking to compel disclosure of alleged non-privileged communication between the two. As reported in Artnet, Silver - who produced The Matrix and Lethal Weapon series - purchased an $8MM Jeff Koons balloon sculpture from Gagosian's gallery. Silver began paying for the sculpture in installments, but ceased payment and sued the gallery when Gagosian allegedly failed to deliver the sculpture on time. Perelman has previously sued Gagosian for failure to deliver on time as well, after Perelman purchased a dozen works of art for $45MM, including a Koons sculpture. Perelman's suit was ultimately dismissed. However, it seems Perelman never forgot his experience with Gagosian's gallery and has decided to finance a third party lawsuit a' la Peter Thiel. Upon discovery of Perelman's financing, Gagosian's attorneys requested that Judge Peter Sherwood compel Silver to disclose Perelman's exact involvement in the case. Their letter also expressed concern that Silver may have violated the case's confidentiality order by disclosing certain information to MAFG. Silver allegedly confirmed outside funding of his claim. His attorney has since announced that he and Gagosian have settled their respective suits (Gagosian had been countersuing), and that Silver will move ahead with his acquisition of the Koons sculpture.
Commercial

NYC Bar to Keep Comments on Ethics of Litigation Funding Private

The comment period for the NYC Bar's recent opinion on third party funding has ended. The NYC Bar found that when funders collect a percentage of fees, the practice constitutes fee sharing between lawyers and non-lawyers, and should therefore be prohibited. The Bar accepted opinions from the public on its recent ethics opinion, and spokesman Eric Friedman has said those opinions will be kept private. As reported in Legal News Line, although the NYC Bar is going to keep the opinions it has received private, many in the funding industry have already voiced their dissent quite publicly. Validity Finance CEO Ralph Sutton recently penned an op-ed where he declared third party funding as an important access-to-justice point for many businesses and individuals. Sutton went even further, in suggesting that it may be unethical for lawyers not to tell their clients about the existence of third party funding. Many have shot back at the idea that funding agreements should be disclosed, claiming that such measures would lead to a 'discovery sideshow,' whereby defendants would move to disclose all matters under the sun, in a bid to stretch out the litigation and pile on excess costs. The New York City Bar’s Working Group on third party funding will release its final report by the end of the year.
Announcements Consumer

Oasis Financial Selects New CEO

Oasis Financial announces the appointment of Greg Zeeman as its new Chief Executive Officer. Zeeman takes over responsibilities from interim CEO, Jack Lavin. Oasis Financial is the nation’s leading provider of consumer litigation finance solutions to plaintiffs, attorneys, and medical providers through its Oasis and Key Health brands. Both Mr. Zeeman and Mr. Lavin will continue to serve on the company’s Board of Managers.

“I’m honored to join the Oasis team,” said Zeeman. “As an industry leader in the provision of both pre-settlement and medical funding solutions, I believe we are extremely well positioned for the next chapter of dramatic growth. We have a proven platform that will enable strong organic growth and an industry landscape that provides for exciting partnership and acquisition opportunities.”

Zeeman is a veteran in the financial services industry. Prior to joining Oasis Financial, he served as Chief Operating Officer for Enova International, a global credit and lending company, and as Chief Executive Officer for Main Street Renewal, a leading home renovation and leasing company across the U.S. He also previously served as Chief Operating Officer for HSBC USA.

“Greg was a natural fit for this opportunity given his leadership experience in financial services, his passion for creating winning teams, and his talent for driving scalable growth,” said Zach Sadek, Partner at Parthenon Capital. Oasis’ financial sponsors include Parthenon Capital and Waterfall Asset Management.

More About Oasis Financial & Key Health  Oasis Financial was founded in 1996 by attorneys who saw a need among clients burdened with increasing medical and living expenses, but their cases weren’t settling fast enough to keep up with their bills. The attorneys launched Oasis to provide a way for plaintiffs to receive an advance on their settlement and make life livable until their case closed. Today, Oasis has helped over 300,000 consumers make ends meet while waiting for their case to settle. In 2017, Oasis merged with Key Health, the nation’s leader in medical lien funding. Key Health works with medical providers spanning the U.S. who offer services to injured victims on a lien or letter of protection basis as part of a personal injury claim. Together, Oasis and Key Health help personal injury victims recover both physically and financially from an accident. Working with more than 14,000 attorneys and maintaining relationships with more than 10,000 physicians, Oasis and Key Health help ensure consumers who are injured in an accident have access to great healthcare, as well as funds to cover life’s other expenses while waiting for a personal injury case to settle.

More information can be found at http://www.oasisfinancial.com/about-oasis.

Announcements Commercial

Pravati Capital Announces Launch of Law Firm Consulting Business

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., June 6, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Pravati Capital (Company), a leading litigation finance and law firm consulting company, announced today that the Company has formally launched its law firm consulting business, Pravati Management Group.

Pravati Management Group was formed to function as a management consultant. The group's experienced team helps law firms take a strategic approach to access, deploy, and manage growth capital for partner and practice acquisition and build a scalable financial and operational infrastructure to drive growth. Pravati Management Group offers counsel on strategy, business decisions, and best practices. Counsel could include input on practice area expansion, talent, potential mergers and acquisitions, financial and operational infrastructure, succession planning, and marketing.

Pravati Capital's primary business is commercial litigation finance, which focuses on providing capital to support both law firms and corporations pursuing high merit cases.

"Managing the business side of a law firm has become more complex," commented Alexander Chucri, Chief Executive Officer of Pravati Capital. "Over the past 16 years, Pravati has gained invaluable insights into the challenges faced by midsize law firms. Our objective at Pravati Management Group is to use our wealth of experience to help a law firm's leadership team make the right decisions on growth strategies and operating models to better use our capital to expand."

Robert S. Schulman, who joined Pravati Capital in 2017 as Commercial Litigation Finance Advisor, will help to grow Pravati Management Group. Mr. Schulman has significant experience in complex commercial litigation and deep expertise in the business management of law firms.

"We are experiencing high demand from law firms looking for capital and business counsel to responsibly scale their firms," added Alexander Chucri. "Bob Schulman is a trusted resource, and his knowledge and insight will help our clients grow and mitigate risk across their firms."

Robert S. Schulman

Robert S. Schulman has practiced law for over 50 years, focusing on commercial litigation involving major corporations in the financial and manufacturing sectors. Prior to joining Pravati Capital in 2017, Mr. Schulman was a senior litigation partner in the Los Angeles offices of Fulbright & Jaworski, where he served as the firm's Chairman of its Accounting Profession Practice Committee and a member of the Los Angeles offices' Leadership Council. Among his numerous honors is his selection by the Chambers Guide as one of the top 13 commercial litigators in the state of California.

Mr. Schulman has also served several terms as an Adjunct Professor of Law at The Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. Mr. Schulman received his Juris Doctor from Rutgers University School of Law.

About Pravati Capital

As a leader in the litigation financing field, Pravati Capital has changed how law firms envision their future. For more than a decade, we have been at the forefront of litigation financing solutions, creating innovative sources for bridge capital. It is our mission to provide innovative, efficient capital solutions for law firms, compassionate assistance to plaintiffs, and a secure alternative investment option for accredited investors. For more information, please visit our website at Pravati Capital or call 1.844.772.8284. You can also follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Commercial

Litigation Funding & ATE Insurance: A Match Made in Legal Heaven

At yesterday's 2nd annual IMN Conference on Litigation Finance, a crowd of industry participants, experts, and interested parties gathered at The Union League Club in Midtown Manhattan to discuss key topics facing the industry. One of the more interesting back-and-froths took place during the first panel, where some light was shed on litigation funding's overlap with ATE insurance, and how even countries like the US are getting in on the ATE act as a form of overall risk reduction. The first panel of the day covered a broad array of topics, including growth in the US market (spoiler, there's plenty), growth in the international market (ahem, IA in Asia takes the cake here; although the Nordic countries in Europe were also mentioned as areas of growth), and ethical hurdles facing the industry (it rhymes with 'Schmandatory disclosure'). But perhaps the most interesting segment of the panel focused on the relationship between litigation finance and ATE insurance. ATE - or 'after the event' insurance - is a product typically offered in cost-shifting jurisdictions like the UK, to protect plaintiffs from having to fully cover an adverse costs award. Jo Burgess, Strategy and Operations Director at UK-based Affiniti Finance (and soon to be an LFJ Podcast guest), explained that ATE insurance has actually been around for much longer than people realize - going on 20 years now. Often times, ATE insurers don't understand the nuances of the law, and how to properly assess risk in the Legal Services environment. As a result, litigation funders like Affiniti end up working very closely with ATE insurers to help them assess their risk pools and underwrite claims. In some cases, Affiniti will even finance the insurance premiums themselves - so they insure the insurance. Of course there are risks here, as ATE insurers have gone bankrupt, which of course renders their agreements null and void. Fortunately, Affiniti hasn't encountered any such circumstance, though the potential looms. Burgess then pointed out that even countries without cost-shifting, such as the United States, are beginning to use ATE insurance as a means of hedging their risk. ATE insurance affords law firms and funders the opportunity to spread their risk across a wider range of cases, and therefore accept more claims which expands their overall risk appetite - something the industry has long been craving. At this point, Jay Greenberg of US-based funder LexShares, took the opportunity to muse on the fact that there aren't more fully-insured litigation products in the US. Greenberg offered the following hypothetical: Say a funder is pricing its deals to yield a 100% annualized return, and say the funder has an 80% win rate. So the book is yielding an 80% IRR. Even if the funder absorbed an extremely expensive insurance product - one that eats up half of earnings - that still leaves the funder with a 40% IRR. Any institutional investor would gobble up that return, especially as it is de-risked from an insurance perspective. A de-risked 40% return might even be more attractive to an underwriter than a risk-heavy 80% return. Stuart Grant of Bench Walk Advisors pointed out that we actually are seeing that scenario play out... just not with insurance companies! It's actually investors who are insuring litigation products, and they are doing so with notes from banks. Investors might ask a funder to take on the first 25% of the risk, but they will pony-up the remaining 75%. This 'wrap program' essentially means the funder is utilizing leverage. 75% of the invested capital is risk-free, and the premium they are receiving on their capital can be considered a form of leverage. Many non-insurance companies are coming in and leveraging these types of wrap programs, presumably because Big Insurance tends to be a slow adopter of new technology (lit fin can be thought of as such), and therefore its up to investors, banks and other non-insurance entities to innovate here (this last thought wasn't mentioned on the panel. I am merely hypothesizing...). James Batson, head of Bentham IMFs New York office, chimed in that his firm has engaged in a handful of investments where litigation finance was provided on appeal, and they secured insurance to cover a large chunk of their investment. These appellate insurance policies derive from the UK, which is perhaps to be expected, however the expectation is that US firms will soon catch on. Appellate court is a natural first step, given that the appeals process is often more predictable than going to trial, with outcomes that are closer to binary. Burgess believes that as costs come down, Big Insurance will jump on board; it's only a matter of time. And the panelists all concurred. As Stuart Grant succinctly put it: "The big takeaway here is, expect more wrap programs and insurance over the next couple of years." The emergence of insurers into the litigation funding market en-masse could greatly reduce the risk profile of the industry as a whole, and perhaps lead to more funded cases across the board (not to mention more funders emerging, with even more capital at their disposal). Of course, we're in wait-and-see mode as to whether all of this actually pans out, but it was a fascinating topic nonetheless.
Announcements Commercial

William Roberts Lawyers & LCM announce a Class Action regarding the payment of conflicted remuneration to financial advisers by Suncorp Superannuation

William Roberts Lawyers and Litigation Capital Management Limited (LCM), a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, are working together to bring a class action against Suncorp Portfolio Service Limited (Suncorp Super), a trustee responsible for the administration of superannuation funds (Suncorp Super Funds) and part of Suncorp Group Limited. The proposed class action will be brought on behalf of members of Suncorp Super Funds to recover compensation for members whose accounts were impacted by charges used to pay conflicted remuneration to financial advisers from 1 July 2013 to date (Conflicted Charges). The class action will allege that Suncorp Super executed agreements to entrench fees that would otherwise have become unlawful or unenforceable. In doing so, the action will allege that Suncorp Super breached its duties to avoid conflicts, act with due care and diligence and act in the best interest of its members. The class action will seek compensation plus interest for affected Suncorp Super members for the Conflicted Charges. It is not proposed that any financial advisers be included in the class action. Bill Petrovski, Principal of William Roberts Lawyers, said “We have formed the view that, since 1 July 2013, Suncorp Super members have been wrongfully stripped of hard-earned monies used for the payment of commissions and other fees to financial advisers. Those monies should now be repaid.” Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM said “LCM has a longstanding and successful track record of identifying and financing class actions that meet our rigorous due diligence criteria. We are pleased to be working alongside William Roberts Lawyers, who have significant expertise in managing class action matters, and believe this proposed class action will give members of Suncorp Super Funds the opportunity to be compensated for fees they should not have incurred.” BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOFA Reforms and conflicted remuneration From 1 July 2013, the Future of Financial Advice Reforms (FOFA Reforms) banned conflicted remuneration for financial advisors, being commissions and other payments that could reasonably influence the advice given to retail clients. Under ‘grandfathering provisions’ of the FOFA Reforms, certain commissions or other payments to be made under an arrangement entered into prior to 1 July 2013 were excepted from the ban. WHAT CAN AFFECTED SUNCORP SUPER MEMBERS DO? Those who are affected or believe may be affected can register their interest in the class action at https://www.williamroberts.com.au/Class-Actions/Suncorp-Super-Class-Action ABOUT WILLIAM ROBERTS LAWYERS William Roberts is a dynamic and innovative law firm with a focus on dispute resolution and litigation, with significant expertise in class actions. The firm has offices across Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Singapore. For further information about William Roberts Lawyers please visit www.williamroberts.com.au ABOUT LCM Litigation Capital Management ("LCM") is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-case and portfolio; across class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection, active project management and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM has been listed on AIM (part of the London Stock Exchange) since December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT. www.lcmfinance.com

CONTACTS

Bill Petrovski Principal bill.petrovski@williamroberts.com.au Phone: +61 2 9552 2111

Susanna Taylor Senior Investment Manager staylor@lcmfinance.com APAC: LCM Phone: +61 2 8098 1393

Hawthorn Advisors lcm@hawthornadvisors.com EMEA: LCM Phone: +44 (0) 20 3745 4960

LINKS

Announcements Commercial

EY announces completion of Pangea3 Legal Managed Services acquisition

LONDON, June 3, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- EY today announces the closing of the acquisition of the Pangea3 Legal Managed Services (LMS) business from Thomson Reuters. Together with the recent acquisition of Riverview Law, this means that EY is the first organization with service offerings including legal function consulting, industry-leading LMS and legal technology in addition to legal advisory services where permitted, in more than 80 jurisdictions. The acquisition significantly grows the existing EY Law service offerings. With Pangea3, more than 1,100 legal project managers, services professionals and technologists join EY, bringing the total number of EY Law professionals across the globe to 3,500. The acquisition will enhance EY technology-enabled LMS in the three core areas of contract life cycle management, regulatory risk and compliance, and investigations. Kate Barton, EY Global Vice Chair – Tax, says: "Companies are looking to transform their legal departments. Cutting-edge technology, processes and the right people that can integrate legal functions into the business more holistically are key to this transformation. This acquisition deepens the EY bench of skilled resources to help companies modernize their law departments and arrive at the optimal operating model." The acquisition supports the growth of the EY LMS offerings by expanding resources and capabilities, offering legal process automation and a services model across the globe. These capabilities will also introduce measurable efficiencies and help clients transform their legal departments and deliver meaningful value to their businesses. Jeff Banta, EY Global Law Co-Leader, says: "In addition to reducing costs and driving efficiencies, legal departments recognize that the future lies in aligning closely with broader business transformation. Through the acquisition of Pangea3, EY Law services are well positioned to leverage broad professional services experience to create a consistent, market-leading offering across the globe that will shape the legal functions of the future." Renowned for its high-quality solutions and a consistent industry award winner, Pangea3 was the original pioneer in the alternative legal services space. Pangea3 has grown significantly within Thomson Reuters and has 15 years of experience, operating out of eight centers worldwide. It boasts deep technology experience, multi-lingual capabilities and a "follow-the-sun" model, which supports legal workflow and quality control. Eric Laughlin, Managing Director, Legal Managed Services, Ernst & Young LLP, says: "The EY Legal Operations service offerings now stand at the cutting-edge of enterprise legal managed service delivery, providing deep domain knowledge, process rigor and scale to guide and implement business transformation. The combination of legal function consulting and now, with Pangea3, legal managed services, will allow EY to create even more custom services to help clients tackle their most pressing challenges." Learn more about EY Legal Operations. About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. Information about how EY collects and uses personal data and a description of the rights individuals have under data protection legislation is available via ey.com/privacy. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com. This news release has been issued by EYGM Limited, a member of the global EY organization that also does not provide any services to clients. About EY Law services To facilitate that EY advice is tailored to the clients' business needs, EY Law services focus on a number of sectors: Automotive; Banking & Capital Markets; Government & Public Sector; Life Sciences; Mining & Metals; Oil & Gas; Power & Utilities; Private Equity; Real Estate; Hospitality & Construction; Technology; and Telecommunications. EY lawyers work alongside professionals from other parts of EY businesses, including Assurance, Tax, Transactions and Advisory. Serving clients across borders, the EY sector-focused, multidisciplinary approach means EY professionals offer highly integrated and pertinent advice you can trust. EY lawyers do not provide US legal services. Virginia Milazzo
EY Global Media Relations
+1 718 473 7376
virginia.milazzo@ey.com
Announcements Commercial

Woodsford Litigation Funding announces key strategic hire and targets significant uptick in investments in 2019/20

LONDON 4 June 2019, Woodsford Litigation Funding, the global provider of litigation financing solutions for businesses, individuals and law firms, has announced further expansion of its international executive team with the appointment of Mitesh Modha to the position of Business Development & Origination Director. Mitesh, who will play a key role in Woodsford’s business development activities outside of North America, joins from Kain Knight, a costs litigation firm, where he was a Director. Woodford’s business development team now spans the globe, with people in San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, London, Tel Aviv, Singapore and Brisbane. “Our business continues to grow and succeed because we have a winning combination of high quality capital and high quality professionals. Particularly following last year’s injection of significant further capital by our shareholders, Mitesh and other new recruits help complete the ingredients for a successful litigation finance business” said Steven Friel, Woodsford’s CEO. Woodsford’s new Business Development & Origination Director, Mitesh Modha commented, “It’s exciting to be joining one of the world’s leading litigation funders at a time when it is growing so quickly. I am really looking forward to playing my part in taking Woodsford to the next level.” About Woodsford Litigation Funding Founded in 2010 and with offices in London, Philadelphia, Singapore and Tel Aviv, Woodsford Litigation Funding provides tailored litigation financing solutions for businesses, individuals, and law firms. This includes both single case and portfolio litigation funding and arbitration funding. Woodsford’s Executive team blends extensive business experience with world-class legal expertise. Woodsford is a founder member of the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales. Woodsford is currently recruiting for a number of other posts, including a Senior Investment Officer (London), Commercial Manager (London or Philadelphia) and Business Development Manager (Singapore).
Commercial

Harbour Litigation Funding Backs Customer Class Action Against AMP

AMP, the Aussie financial giant which is facing a massive shareholder class action being led by law firm Maurice Blackburn on a no win, no fee basis, is facing a second class action - this one on behalf of customers. The action is again being led by Maurice Blackburn, this time funded by Harbour Litigation Funding. As reported in ABC News, the action alleges that AMP routinely overcharged its 2.5 million customer base on administration fees, dating all the way back to 2013. In some cases, the investment firm allegedly charged 1.5% in fees when it was contractually obligated to charge .5%. AMP is facing a shareholder class action in the wake of its massive stock price drop, in addition to a lawsuit by the Australian Securities and Exchange Commission. Key executives are also facing a criminal probe into a separate matter of 'fee for no service.' The customer claim is being brought by Maurice Blackburn and is funded by Harbour Litigation Funding. Harbour is set to receive 20% on any payout up to $125MM, and 10% on any number over that threshold.
Announcements Commercial

Mitry Lawyers to Speak at the 5th Litigation Funding Conference in Sydney on May 31, 2019

Sydney, NSW, Australia--Ticonderoga Ventures, Inc. announces that Mitry Lawyers will speak at the Litigation Funding Conference ( https://litigationfundingconference.com) on May 31, 2019 in Sydney, Australia. Rick Mitry, will speak on the current status of the law of representative proceedings. ABOUT MITRY LAWYERS Mitry Lawyers is a boutique law firm with branches in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. It’s clientele range across Australia, Asia and the Middle East. “Mitry Lawyers is committed to engaging Australian business with international opportunities as well as promoting Australian opportunities in global markets. We provide the expertise and legal support to facilitate both. We work to ensure our clients are best equipped to take advantage of existing opportunities and remain competitive with a rapidly transforming global market.” Our specialties are private international law including cases for and against Australian and foreign governments, the law of diplomatic and foreign states immunities, commercial litigation, and representative proceedings as well as intellectual property and media. Mitry Lawyers understand the complexities laden within the Australian legal system and endeavor to ensure that clients feel comfortable with the services provided and informed of the practical effect of legal processes. Mitry Lawyers seek to continuously support and promote the education of young law students, through the Macquarie University Mitry Lawyers Award, and the internship of foreign students. ABOUT THE LITIGATION FUNDING CONFERENCE The Litigation Funding Conference is the leading networking and business event for the industry.  Corporate counsel and attorneys from significantly sized law firms seeking finances for high value claims meet directly with third party litigation funding firms, venture capitalists and hedge funds.  Financial professionals and investors representing significant resources attend to fund suits they are expressly interested in. Time, the most valuable commodity at the event, is designed for maximum efficiency in introducing attorneys with those that provide funding to quickly identify the best opportunities and begin the deal making process. Registration for the event can be made at https://litigationfunding.co/register-sydney-2019.php For more information, please visit the website https://www.litigationfundingconference.com or contact: Ticonderoga Ventures, Inc. Marketing and Logistics Representative Tel/ Fax: USA +1 (212) 722-1744 E-mail:  info-21@litigationfundingconference.com Twitter:  @LITIGATIONFUND1
Announcements Commercial

LCM: Court Approval of Settlement and Portfolio and Pipeline Update

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, announces that the court has approved a settlement in respect of one of its class action litigation projects. This follows the negotiated settlement in principle of this litigation project announced on 20 March 2019.

Highlights

  • Court approval granted on 28 May 2019 with the effect that the settlement has become final and binding between the parties.
  • Further judgment expected shortly which will determine the precise amount of LCM’s share of these funds following which LCM will make a further announcement with the financial metrics of this litigation project.
  • The settlement funds will be paid within 30 days with LCM’s entitlement set to contribute significantly to profit for the current financial year to 30 June 2019.
  • Fourth litigation project that LCM has completed in the current financial period.

The litigation project relates to a class action LCM funded on behalf of certain former shareholders in a resources company formerly listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The other party is an international professional services company and prior to a final hearing, both parties participated in a mediation where a settlement in principle was reached.

The terms of the settlement (which are confidential) were approved by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia at a hearing on 28 May 2019. This renders the settlement final and triggers the obligation on the defendant to pay the settlement sum.

Class actions represent one of several types of litigation projects that LCM provides funding for across single-case and portfolios, as well as international arbitration, commercial claims and claims arising out of insolvency.

Portfolio and pipeline update

LCM currently has a portfolio of 28 projects under management. 18 of those litigation projects are unconditionally funded and 10 projects are conditionally signed. Since LCM’s last announcement in relation to its portfolio, the projects which have moved to be unconditionally funded include:

  • Proceedings in Hong Kong brought on behalf of company in liquidation alleging breach of contract and negligence against a Hong Kong company with a capital commitment to be provided by LCM of US$0.965 million.
  • An ICC arbitration seated in London brought on behalf of a hotel and hospitality developer against a large global company with a capital commitment to be provided by LCM of US$1.5 million.

The balance of new matters are signed up on a conditional basis and will be announced separately in a future update provided that they transition to an unconditional status.

The current pipeline of pre-qualified opportunities continues to demonstrate the large and diverse investment opportunities within the company. LCM currently has approximately 65 pipeline projects across a mix of litigation financing including commercial, international arbitration, insolvency, class actions and corporate portfolios. The estimated potential investment across those 65 projects exceeds A$400 million. That pipeline of investment opportunities is dynamic and changes regularly. The pipeline reflects the global nature of LCM’s business with projects in Australia, the Asia Pacific and EMEA.

Of that pipeline, LCM is undertaking due diligence, or in advanced negotiations with respect to nine corporate portfolio transactions. In respect of some of those corporate portfolio opportunities, commercial term sheets have been issued and negotiations are continuing.

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, said: 

"We’re delighted to receive court approval for the settlement reached earlier this year in March. The completion of this litigation project vindicates our approach to project selection and use of active project management. The profitability and contribution from this project are also likely to be ahead of our expectations at the time of the settlement in principle in March 

“We are very pleased with the status of our current portfolio and pipeline. Both our portfolio and our pipeline demonstrate the successful implementation of our strategies of diversification by geographical region and project type as well as continued growth in the size of our portfolio.

“LCM has a strong and longstanding track record of funding class actions, which continue to make up a proportion of our diversified portfolio and pipeline of litigation projects, alongside corporate portfolios, claims arising out of insolvency, international arbitration and commercial litigation.”

About LCM

Litigation Capital Management (“LCM”) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-case and portfolios across class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection, active project management and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM has been listed on AIM since December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT. www.lcmfinance.com

Announcements Commercial

Bentham IMF Hires Recognized International Arbitration Expert in Canada

Dispute financing company Bentham IMF has hired well-known international arbitration expert Annie Lespérance, FCIArb, as Legal Counsel in its Montreal office as it continues to expand both its arbitration bench strength, and its presence in a growing Quebec market. Annie is the eighth lawyer to join the Canadian team, and will assist in assessing commercial litigation and arbitration matters, where clients seek funding to manage the cost or risk of pursuing a claim. Prior to joining Bentham, Annie practised as a lawyer at Cabinet Yves Fortier (2012-2019) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (2011-2012), where she acted as Secretary to Arbitral Tribunals in international commercial, investor-State and sports arbitration disputes under a wide range of procedural rules (ICC, ICSID, LCIA, UNCITRAL, PCA, ICDR, SIAC, HKIAC, CAS, SDRCC) and governing laws. Annie has been appointed as an arbitrator and is a member of various arbitration rosters, including NAFTA’s Chapter 19 Roster of Panelists and ICDR Canada’s panel of arbitrators. She has also been recognized as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) based in London, UK. Annie’s hire reflects the growth in arbitration funding, as well as the increasing demand for litigation funding across Canada.  Annie will leverage her unique experience acting as arbitral secretary for one of the world’s preeminent arbitrators to conduct due diligence on potential investments, and work with lawyers and clients to manage funded matters. She adds considerable depth to Bentham IMF’s global arbitration team, which also recently welcomed Dana MacGrath, the president of Arbitral Women and a leading international arbitration lawyer who was previously a partner at Sidley Austin in New York. Bentham’s team includes arbitration experts in Canada, the US, the UK, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia. “Litigation funders have become key players in the arbitration and commercial litigation landscape. I am absolutely delighted to join the world’s oldest and most experienced dispute financing company and a team of sophisticated lawyers,” says Annie. Annie adds to a growing team in Montreal that includes Montreal office leader and former McCarthy Tétrault LLP partner Pierre-Jérôme Bouchard, and senior advisor George Hendy, a veteran Montreal litigator who practised for over 45 years at Ogilvy Renault (now Norton Rose Fulbright Canada), Phillips & Vineberg (now Davies, Ward, Philipps and Vineberg LLP) and Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt. “Annie’s arrival truly complements our team in Montreal. She brings a different and unique experience and will be a great asset for claimants not only in the international arbitration space, including both commercial and investor-state disputes, but also in all types of cases," says Pierre-Jérôme. Annie earned her law degree from Université de Montréal and her LL.M. cum laude, from Leiden University. Annie was called to the Quebec Bar in 2010 and to the Paris Bar in 2011. She is fluent in French, English and Spanish. Bentham IMF is delighted to welcome Annie to the team. She can be reached atalesperance@benthamimf.ca or +1-514-795-8787.
Announcements Commercial

RPX Corporation Names Jon Knight EVP, Business Development

SAN FRANCISCO, May 21, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- RPX Corporation, the leading provider of patent risk management solutions, today announced that Jon Knight has joined RPX as Executive Vice President, Business Development, effective May 13, 2019.

In this role, Mr. Knight is responsible for engaging with businesses of all sizes around the world to understand their patent challenges and inform them of the range of solutions RPX provides to its members to address those challenges.

Mr. Knight brings two decades of experience at International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) to RPX. Most recently, he served as General Manager, Client Financing for IBM Global Financing (IGF), where he was responsible for IGF's end-user financing business. IBM Global Financing is the world's largest IT captive financier with clients in over 60 countries and more than 20 industries. He also served as Vice President for Intellectual Property, responsible for the licensing, sales, enforcement, and joint development of IBM's worldwide intellectual property portfolio.

"The effectiveness and strength of RPX lies in the breadth and depth of expertise members can access on our platform and the IP professionals who work tirelessly to solve members' patent challenges," said RPX CEO Dan McCurdy. "As the RPX membership network grows, so does the scale and efficiency of our defensive patent acquisition efforts and related solutions. Jon's experience makes him remarkably well-suited to help drive that growth. I am excited to welcome Jon to the RPX team and look forward to working with him to bolster what makes us the market leader—the power of the collective."

"RPX's innovative solutions provide companies with actionable, and unrivaled, ways to manage their patent-related risks," said Mr. Knight. "By bringing companies together to solve their shared challenges, RPX creates efficiencies both for its members and the market overall. The value it creates for its members grows stronger with each new member. I am excited to lead the charge to bring more companies into this leading-edge network."

Before joining IBM, Mr. Knight was a Vice President at Merrill Lynch covering financial institutions and has more than 15 years of experience in the financial services industry. Mr. Knight has an MBA in Finance and an MS in Taxation from Fordham University'sGraduate School of Business Administration, and he holds a BA in Economics and Psychology from the College of the Holy Cross. A competitive triathlete, Mr. Knight lives in California with his wife and two daughters.

ABOUT RPX 

RPX Corporation is the leading provider of patent risk solutions, offering defensive buying, acquisition syndication, patent intelligence, insurance services and advisory services. Since its founding in 2008, RPX has introduced efficiency to the patent market by providing a rational alternative to litigation. The San Francisco-based company's pioneering approach combines principal capital, deep patent expertise, and client contributions to generate enhanced patent buying power. By acquiring patents and patent rights, RPX helps to mitigate and manage patent risk for its growing client network.

As of March 31, 2019, RPX had invested over $2.5 billion to acquire more than 46,000 U.S. and international patent assets and rights on behalf of approximately 320 clients in eight key sectors: automotive, consumer electronics and PCs, E-commerce and software, financial services, media content and distribution, mobile communications and devices, networking, and semiconductors.

Commercial Consumer

LawCoin Brings Litigation Funding to the Blockchain

There have been numerous attempts so far, and here comes another one: LawCoin is poised to introduce litigation finance to the blockchain by allowing accredited retail investors to finance and even trade shares in lawsuits by tokenizing the offerings. As reported in Crypto Briefing, LawCoin President Marc Goldich sees opportunity in bringing litigation funding to the masses via the blockchain. He feels the added transparency and liquidity will do for the Legal Services sector what IPOs have done for private corporations. LawCoin will allow investors to purchase tokens, each of which represents a fraction of a lawsuit. Upon successful completion of the claim, investors will receive their share of the proceeds as a LawCoin, digitally recorded on the blockchain. As the platform evolves, users will eventually be able to trade tokens with one another, creating a sort-of impromptu secondary market. Goldich views litigation funding revolutionary, yet far from efficient. The fact that it’s only available to large institutional and high net worth individuals is something he looks forward to changing. And the difficulty in developing a secondaries market means that early investors can often be stuck in a claim for years, something LawCoin looks to easily change. LawCoin is part of the Tachyon 10-week accelerator. Goldich and fellow co-founder and CEO Noah Axler worry they might be a little early to market with a tokenized offering for litigation funding, yet they remain 100% convinced that this is where the industry is headed. The team have already identified strong cases for their platform, which launches later this summer.
Consumer

Nevada May Be the Next Battleground in ‘The War on Funding’

The Consumer Legal Funding industry is facing another test in the state of Nevada, where bill SB 432 has already passed the Senate and now awaits a floor vote in the House. The bill seeks to cap funding fees at 40% annually, and include additional regulations such as the disclosure of all fees and disallowance of commissions and referral fees. As reported in the Nevada Current, Nevada may be on the cusp of becoming one of roughly half-a-dozen states to regulate the Consumer Legal Funding industry. George Burns, retired Commissioner of the Nevada Department of Business’s Financial Institutions Division worries that Consumer Legal Funding will negatively impact consumers who are used to traditional loan terms. Of course, the industry counters that their product is not a loan, given that funding is non-recourse and therefore not obligated to be repaid when cases are lost at trial. A recent study by Cardozo Law professor Anthony Sebok, which analyzed over 200,000 funded claims, found that in 12% of all cases the funding company incurred losses - and in 10% the funder lost their entire capital commitment. Many industry opponents have attempted to paint the funding industry in the same light as payday lending, yet there are stark contrasts: Consumer Legal Funding does not impact credit, nor does the customer face a worse financial stake - even if the case is lost - such as repossession of assets. Despite this, industry opponents such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continue their push against Consumer Legal Funders. With SB 432's passage, Nevada is shaping up to be the next point of confrontation in an ongoing dispute over whether funders are to be considered lenders or investors.
Announcements Commercial

Legal Capital Research Institute (Shenzhen) to Speak at the 5th Litigation Funding Conference in Sydney on May 31, 2019

Ticonderoga Ventures, Inc. announces that Legal Capital Research Institute (Shenzhen) will speak at the 5th Litigation Funding Conference ( https://litigationfundingconference.com) on May 31, 2019 in Sydney, Australia. Medivh HU, Managing Director at Legal Capital Research Institute (Shenzhen) will speak on the china market for litigation funding. Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_2FYWr6lKg ABOUT LEGAL CAPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SHENZHEN) Legal Capital Research Institute (Shenzhen) was founded by Shenzhen Qianhai DS Legal Capital Co. Ltd. in December, 2017 as a non-profit research organization. The establishment of this Institute aims to explore the intrinsic logic between law and capital, to prompt the development of legal service market, to promote China’s progress in economy and the rule of law, as well as to safeguard the social justice. The establishment of the Institute can effectively make up for the current short of theoretical researches into relevant topics. Through the research, the Institute helps to advocate the transformation and innovation of legal service in China and meanwhile, call for new legislative actions from government perspective. The objective for Institute is seeks to realize an orderly development of Third-Party Funding in China. The Institute works with several governmental bodies, universities, arbitration institutions, non-governmental international and domestic organizations to research and discuss the litigation funding industry and its regulations in several aspects. ABOUT THE LITIGATION FUNDING CONFERENCE The Litigation Funding Conference is the leading networking and business event for the industry.  Corporate counsel and attorneys from significantly sized law firms seeking finances for high value claims meet directly with third party litigation funding firms, venture capitalists and hedge funds.  Financial professionals and investors representing significant resources attend to fund suits they are expressly interested in. Time, the most valuable commodity at the event, is designed for maximum efficiency in introducing attorneys with those that provide funding to quickly identify the best opportunities and begin the deal making process. Registration for the event can be made at https://litigationfunding.co/register-sydney-2019.php For more information, please visit the website https://www.litigationfundingconference.com or contact: Ticonderoga Ventures, Inc. Marketing and Logistics Representative Tel/ Fax: USA +1 (212) 722-1744 E-mail:  info-21@litigationfundingconference.com Twitter:  @LITIGATIONFUND1
Commercial

The Rise of Third Party Funding in India

Third party funding has been legal in India since at least 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled that there is nothing morally wrong with outside funding of legal cases, as long as an attorney is not the one doing the funding. In 1996, changes were adopted to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which further attracted the attention of third party funders. Now, thanks in large part to the construction and infrastructure industry, third party funding is gaining a foothold in the world's second most-populous nation. According to CNBC, many Indian construction/infra firms are in desperate need of liquidity, given that there is often a significant delay from government agencies in providing the rights to develop on land parcels. Company assets often remain idle on the books, which negatively impact balance sheets. As a result, many infra firms in India have outstanding legal claims against government agencies. Yet lengthy trial timelines coupled with insolvency woes leave these firms in dire straits. That's where outside financing comes into play. With several big arbitration payouts being handed down recently against government agencies (Jindal ITF Ltd won Rs 2015 crore in a claim against NTPC Ltd, and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited won Rs 2950 crore against Delhi Metro Rail Corporation), the appetite for third party funding in India is growing stronger by the year.
Announcements Commercial

Validity Finance Launches New Summer Fellowship for Law Students of Diverse Backgrounds

NEW YORK, May 14, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Leading litigation funder Validity Finance has launched a new Equal Access Fellowship, providing a paid summer fellowship to first-year law students of diverse backgrounds. For 2019, the company has selected two distinguished first-year students to spend the summer in Validity's New York office, with an option to split their time working for a pro bono organization of their choice. The two inaugural Equal Access Fellows are New York University School of Law JD candidate Amanda Gonzalez Burtonand Georgetown University Law Center JD candidate Jarrett Lewis. "We created the Equal Access Fellowship to help law students from underrepresented backgrounds obtain meaningful experience early in their careers, and begin building the professional networks that will promote their growth," said Validity founder and CEO Ralph Sutton. While at Validity, fellows will learn about the burgeoning litigation finance sector and its increasing role in leveling the playing field in commercial disputes. Fellows will interact with perhaps dozens of law firms and help review an equal number of prospective cases seeking funding, performing legal research, participating in client meetings, and drafting articles for publication in the process. After an initial five weeks, each fellow will have the option of either staying with Validity or spending the balance of the summer with a public service organization of his or her choice. In either case, Validity Finance will pay the fellows' salaries for the entire 10-week program. While both Ms. Burton and Mr. Lewis will be based in New York, future fellows will serve in Validity's offices in Chicagoand Houston as the program expands in size and scope. Validity expects to maintain an ongoing mentoring relationship with the fellows as they advance through law school and enter the legal profession.  Validity hopes participants will emerge from the fellowship with an excellent grounding in the economics of law firms and litigation risk. The 2019 fellows were chosen through a selective process that included interviews and a review of academic performance.  Candidates were also required to submit essays addressing factors that influenced their decision to train as lawyers. "We want to help lead the litigation funding sector in giving back to the legal community," said Julia Gewolb, Validity's Head of Underwriting. "Our new Equal Access Fellowship is an opportunity to invest in the development of our profession by helping promote promising, diverse young lawyers.  Fellows will gain not just a solid introduction to the business of law, but an opportunity to meet with dozens of commercial litigation practitioners, helping these young law students build a key professional network early in their legal careers." "We are delighted to welcome Amanda Burton and Jarrett Lewis as our inaugural Equal Access Fellows to New York," Mr. Sutton said. "We look forward to working with these talented law students and are pleased to be offering them an introduction to the world of litigation finance, where stellar lawyers are seeing enormous career opportunities." About the Fellows Validity's inaugural Equal Access Fellows are: Amanda Gonzalez Burton is a 1L at New York University School of Law, where she is a recipient of the Norma Z. Paige Scholarship and is a Dean's Scholar and Birnbaum Women's Leadership Fellow. She is a board member of the Latinx Law Students Association. She previously worked for Teach for America and as a Sponsor for Educational Opportunity Law Fellows at Clifford Chance. Ms. Burton obtained an MBA from Rutgers Business School in 2014 and a B.A. in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences from Florida State University in 2009, graduating magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. Jarrett Lewis, a 1L student at Georgetown Law School, is a member of the Black Law Students Association and the Rise Fellows Program, a pre-orientation program for students from historically underrepresented backgrounds in the legal profession. He previously interned with Foy & Seplowitz LLC and The Legal Aid Society, and attended the Shook Scholars Institute at Shook Hardy Bacon. He obtained a Bachelor of Science in criminology from Pennsylvania State University in 2018. About Validity Validity is a commercial litigation finance company that provides businesses, law firms and individuals with non-recourse financing for a wide variety of commercial disputes. Founded in 2018 with $250 million in financing, Validity believes that capital and legal expertise combine to help solve legal problems on behalf of clients. Validity's' mission is to make a meaningful difference for clients by focusing on fairness, ethics, innovation, and clarity. Validity is committed to developing a diverse and inclusive work force in its own offices and within the legal profession as a whole. Validity embraces a broad definition of diversity, encompassing race, gender, ethnicity, disability, and LGBTQ background, as well as individuals from underrepresented social, economic, religious, and geographic backgrounds. Equal access to justice; equal access to opportunity— this is what Validity believes is fair and right. CONTACT: Allan Ripp, 212-262-7477, aripp@rippmedia.com SOURCE Validity Finance

Related Links

https://validity-finance.com
Announcements Commercial

“Therium Access” not-for-profit funding initiative announces first grant awards to improve access to justice in the UK

Jersey, Channel Islands, 15 May 2019. Therium Group Holdings Limited, one of the world’s leading providers of litigation, arbitration and specialty legal finance, today announced the first recipients of grant awards by Therium Access, the firm’s not- for-profit funding initiative dedicated to facilitating access to justice. The inaugural recipients include The Personal Support Unit, LawWorks, Crosslight Advice and the Suffolk Law Centre. Therium Access is the first-of-its-kind initiative in the litigation funding industry. Grants awarded by Therium Access are intended to promote access to justice for those who lack the funds necessary to pursue or defend claims, as well as to projects that seek to improve access to justice. John Byrne, Co-Founder and CEO of Therium Capital Management Limited, said: “We launched Therium Access two months ago and we are delighted to be announcing the first recipients of grant awards. The recipients have been selected on the basis that the funding provided by Therium Access will have a significant impact and help to improve access to justice for as many people as possible. Therium is ten years old this year and the making of this first round of grants is a fantastic way to mark our 10 year anniversary.” Lord Falconer, Chairman of Therium Access Advisory Committee said: “This is a first for the litigation funding industry and will hopefully lead the way for further initiatives.  The not-for-profit funding that Therium Access is providing to these projects will provide help for a large number of individuals who otherwise would not have received legal advice and assistance, in the light of years of punitive cuts to legal aid and advice funding by the state. I strongly support the initiative Therium have taken. And am proud to be Therium Access’ chair.” Ellen Pereira, CEO of Personal Support Unit (PSU) said: “We are immensely grateful to Therium Access for their kind and most generous grant in support of four of our PSU services. In a difficult funding climate and with increased competition for limited funds, we are absolutely delighted that Therium Access is supporting our vital work of increasing access to justice. The funding will not only help us support more people accessing the civil and family courts but also help support our new delivery model, enabling us to reach more people in more places. From everyone here at the PSU, thank you once again for your generosity.” Martin Barnes, CEO of LawWorks said: “LawWorks is delighted to have been awarded one of the first grants by Therium Access. The grant will fund our project to support solicitors providing pro bono advice and representation for social security benefit tribunal appeals. With bespoke training and supervision provided by LawWorks, pro bono volunteers are achieving success rates at appeal of over 90% of cases, ensuring that many vulnerable people receive the vital financial support to which they are entitled.” Bruce Connell, CEO Crosslight Advice said: "We are incredibly grateful to have partners like Therium Access supporting our work with the most vulnerable. Like Therium, we believe that justice should be a universal concept and we are thrilled to be working with them to provide our clients with access to justice and improve their lives." Audrey Ludwig, Director of Legal Services of the Suffolk Law Centre said: "Suffolk Law Centre is England’s newest Law Centre. We work to offer access to justice for all, particularly the most vulnerable and those most impacted by the legal aid desert in Suffolk. Our services include weekly Legal Advice Clinics, a Family Support Court Helpdesk, and a discrimination casework service.  We assisted over 1,500 people in our first year with advice, casework, legal education workshops, policy work and referrals to other services. We are extremely proud to be supported by Therium Access, and are delighted that with their generosity we can continue to support the diverse communities of Suffolk to gain equal access to justice, to challenge disadvantage and inequality, and to help them understand their legal rights, obligations and protections." Therium Access is the primary expression of Therium’s corporate and social responsibility programme. Therium Access dispenses with the criteria of funding for profit and has the sole purpose of facilitating access to justice by funding cases and projects which could not usually be funded on a commercial basis.  Therium Access is a mark of Therium’s wider commitment to the pursuit of justice and the rule of law. Therium Access accepts applications from charities and other entities whose services and projects facilitate access to justice or from those seeking assistance to obtain legal representation on cases (including defence). The applicant’s need and the impact of the grant will be important factors in our review process. The deadline for the submission of the next round of grant applications is 30 August 2019. Applications need to be made by legal representatives or the entity seeking a grant.  The board of Therium Access is assisted by an Advisory Committee which is chaired by Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Secretary of State for Justice. Therium Access aims to support access to justice in the broadest terms and considers applications that further the following causes (in no particular order):
  • The right to legal representation or due process;
  • The proper and efficient administration of justice;
  • The advancement of human rights;
  • The promotion of equalityof rights and diversity;
  • The protection of children, the elderly, the disabled, minorities, asylum seekers and other vulnerable or disadvantagedgroups;
  • The advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
  • The promotion of legal educationthat furthers the causes listed above; and
  • Any othercase or project in which a person, group, or entity will not have access to justice without financial assistance.
Therium Access is intended to be a global initiative. Its initial focus is on the UK and it will be rolled out in other jurisdictions in a number of planned phases. About Therium Therium is a leading global provider of litigation and arbitration and specialty legal finance, active in England and Wales since 2009. Over that period, Therium has funded claims with a total value exceeding £34 billion, including many of the largest and most high profile funded cases in the UK.  With investment teams in the UK, USA, Australia, Spain and Norway, Therium has established a track record of success in litigation finance in all forms, including single case litigation and arbitration funding, funding law firms and portfolios of litigation and arbitration claims.  Therium is also a founding member of the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales. Therium Access and its not-for-profit funding is the latest innovation from Therium which has consistently been at the forefront of innovation in litigation finance, pioneering the combined use of insurance tools alongside funding vehicles, and introducing portfolio funding products into the UK.  Therium’s ability to develop innovative funding arrangements and bespoke financial solutions for litigants and law firms complements its unmatched experience and rigorous approach to funding a wide range of commercial disputes throughout the world. In Chambers and Partners’ inaugural litigation support directory 2018, Therium was ranked as a Tier 1 litigation funder, and Neil Purslow, the firm’s Chief Investment Officer, was named a leading individual in the litigation funding industry. In February this year, Therium Capital Management was top ranked as one of the two “Leading” litigation and arbitration funding firms in the UK by legal and business directory Leaders League, in their 2019 ranking of litigation funding. Therium was also ranked as “Excellent” in the 2019 US ranking. www.therium.com  About the grant recipients  Law Works- grant for a national and well-known charity to provide funding over 3 years for their secondary specialisation project in welfare benefits law, where volunteer lawyers are trained, supervised and insured to enable them to represent clients on a pro bono basis in the Department of Work and Pensions tribunal. This is an existing project with a 90% success rate in appealing benefit cuts and approximately 270 people will receive assistance as a direct consequence of this grant. https://www.lawworks.org.uk/ Suffolk Law Centre- grant for a regional law centre which was only set up a year ago. It is the only law centre in Ipswich and serves Suffolk, which is a legal aid advice desert. The centre provides varied advice to those who cannot afford legal advice, including on family, immigration, discrimination and housing law matters, it also runs workshops in schools to tackle discrimination and provides support to litigants in person in the local Family Court. In the next 6 months alone, the centre is expected to provide advice and support to 500 people. http://www.iscre.org.uk/legal-services/suffolk-law-advice-centre/ Personal Support Unit (‘PSU’)- grants for a national and well-known charity to provide funding for 1 year for three satellite services in Barnet, Coventry and Southend-on-Sea, and an underfunded and oversubscribed service in Preston, where volunteers provide support to Litigants in Person in court, mostly in respect of family law matters. It is anticipated that these 4 services will provide 3,400 sessions of support in this period. https://www.thepsu.org/ Crosslight Advice- grant for a niche charity to provide funding for 1 year for the costs of a site in a deprived area of West London, where volunteers provide specialist debt advice and support. Many of the charity’s clients are vulnerable, with most having mental health issues and living below the poverty line. They provide a holistic service, with the aim of providing pre-emptive advice to keep people out of the justice system. It is expected that the grant will facilitate in-depth support for around 100 people. https://www.crosslightadvice.org/ Media enquiries Desiree Maghoo Questor Consulting +44 (0)7775 522740 dmaghoo@questorconsulting.com
Commercial Special Features

Funders and Lawyers Discuss Defense Funding

At the recent General Counsel Forum on Litigation Finance, both funders and lawyers came together to discuss a variety of topics facing the industry. One of those is defense-side funding. What are the options for defense funding? How can defense cases be monetized? Is this really even a thing? The answer to that last question is a resounding 'yes.' Defense-side funding is most definitely a thing - though not as straightforward a thing as plaintiff-side funding. Monetization is clearly an issue for defense funding. A successful defense of a claim often results in a lack of monetization - that is to say, the party wins the case and doesn't pay out a dime. So what incentive is there for funders to take part? Well, there are several creative workarounds here. One option is for a funder to take a percentage of an asset over a select portion of its lifetime. For example, should a funder finance a defense-side IP claim, the funder may accept a percentage of the IP over a certain number of years, or up to a certain clawback benchmark. Additionally, one other (even more creative) option is to redefine what constitutes a 'successful' defense. A firm being sued for $1B, for example, may feel that a $200MM settlement or court award would constitute a success. A funder could finance the claim and take a portion of anything under that 'successful' threshold. In this scenario, there would have to be controls in place to ensure that the client isn't incentivized to take a higher settlement offer, simply in order to avoid paying out the funder's fee capture. Although the most traditional means of defense-side funding remains bundling them into a portfolio of cases. As Reed Oslan of Kirkland & Ellis mentioned, "The only effective way we've found (for defense-side funding) is to pair defense-side with plaintiff-side." Michael German of Vannin Capital was quick to point out that "it's a stretch to call lumping defense and plaintiff-side cases together 'defense funding.' Defense funding is a narrow universe, as there are only a narrow set of cases that can be funded." German may be correct, but that doesn't mean that defense-side funding isn't getting done. Oslan explained that his firm (Kirkland & Ellis) has told clients to give them $50MM of defense work in exchange for $25MM of fees. So the client is saving $25MM off the bat. In return, Kirkland gets a steady stream of plaintiff-side work which they perform on a 100% contingency basis. So it's a win-win for both the firm and the client. The fact that law firms are utilizing alternative fee structures such as this should buoy the hopes of funders looking to get in on the defense funding game. Defense-side funding may take some creativity to get off the ground, but it is certainly a viable tool in every funder's arsenal.