John Freund – Page 109 – Legal Funding Journal

May 18, 2020

Litigation Finance is a complex and growing industry for good reason. It’s a boon to potential plaintiffs of limited means, as it increases their access to the pursuit of justice. It’s helpful for legal firms keeping the balance sheets tight while still pursuing a heavy caseload. Litigation funding is also good for the court systems at large, as funders only want to fund meritorious cases—cutting down on frivolous litigation clogging courts. Above the Law details that a client doesn't need to set up a funding agreement at the early stages of the case. There is any number of ways that bringing in a third-party financing partner can help a case at any stage of the process—before an award is collected. Teaming with a funder at the outset of your case can be advantageous, especially financially—even when it’s not strictly necessary in order for the case to move forward. The best time to get advice from an experienced funder is before you’ve invested too much time and money. That’s a good time for cases to be tested, and their merits weighed. If a case seems to be going well, it can be good to bring in a funder at the midway point. Once it’s determined that an early settlement won’t be reached, morale might be down while expenses pile up. Bringing in funding to mitigate risk and expenses can be a big plus at this stage of the case. Even after a judgment has been provided in your case, a funder can help. Additional funding might be needed to mitigate an appeals process or ensure that an award can be collected. In class action cases, it may take months or longer to determine individual payouts and get them distributed. While earlier is probably better when considering Litigation Finance, there’s really no stage in the game where it’s too late to bring in an experienced funder. The right funder can offer sage guidance, help ease financial strain, and limit risk for all involved.

Commercial

May 13, 2020

The Australian government plans to move forward with its inquiry into class-action lawsuits. This inquiry was originally planned for March of this year, but has been slow going thanks to the current pandemic. Concerns over COVID-19 have also raised questions about how class actions might hurt Australian small businesses. Sydney Morning Herald reports that it is common for third-party funders to take as much as 30% of legal settlements that should be going to the plaintiffs. AG Christian Porter describes that kind of arrangement as leaving action members ‘fighting over scraps’ after funders take their fees. At the same time, fees are generally agreed to in advance by class action participants—presumably after having been given the appropriate disclosures. Meanwhile, legal affairs spokesperson Mark Dreyfus put forth the idea that the government is looking to stifle class action cases to protect big business, which is the kind of thing that takes place in oligarchic situations, not capitalistic ones. The inquiry will be conducted by the parliamentary joint committee of corporations and financial services. One issue of contention is whether or not litigation funders should be licensed at the federal level. A debate on whether this would increase transparency or dissuade funders is sure to ensue.

Public

Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Uncategorized

Currency Considerations for Litigation Fund Managers and Investors

May 13, 2020

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’ Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance. EXECUTIVE SUMARY

There has been an unprecedented & swift fluctuation in currency markets globally
Currency fluctuations can have a significant impact on litigation finance funds with currency exposures
Impartial currency advisors will provide market transparency and specific solutions geared towards your specific situation

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

Currency hedging is an important risk mitigation strategy to consider for portfolios exposed to multi-currencies without hedging
Hedging cannot eliminate currency risk entirely but can mitigate its impact
When assessing manager returns, ensure the effects of currency gains/losses are removed to understand the actual return profile of the portfolio

Editor’s note– the following contribution appears with illustrative graphs and charts here. The recent unprecedented and rapid strengthening in the US dollar has created a significant 8% swing in currency rates in a matter of days. Such abrupt swings can have significant implications for businesses or financial instruments that are exposed to currency. As an example, in 2014, the owners of the famous ‘Gherkin’ building in the city of London were forced to sell the building, which was 99% occupied and performing exceptionally well. The only problem was, the debt the owners had used to acquire the building was denominated in multiple currencies, including Swiss francs. As a consequence of the financial crisis of 2008, the Swiss Franc appreciated against the British pound by almost 60% over a few years, which increased the debt by £100 million. This was compounded by interest rate swaps that ended up £140 million out of the money. Consequently, the owners were forced to sell their investment in order to repay the higher level of debt, as expressed in British pounds. Similarly, there are global concerns related to the domestic currency obligations of US dollar denominated debt of developing countries (US bond holders did not want to accept currency risk and insisted on US dollar denominated bonds). These developing countries have seen their dollars depreciate relative to an appreciating US Dollar, which makes their US dollar denominated debt that much more expensive in terms of their domestic currency, exacerbating their debt obligations in the middle of a global financial crisis. All of that is to say that currency fluctuations can happen quickly, and have a material impact on the value of the underlying instrument to which they relate. Implications for Litigation Finance Investing In a previous article, I made reference to the fact that the commercial litigation finance marketplace has quickly become a global marketplace. Typically, we would see alternative asset managers toil away in their backyards for a number of years until they achieve sufficient scale to justify replicating infrastructure worldwide, in order to expand operations into less familiar but potentially less efficient markets – ‘pursuing greener pastures’ one might say. Commercial litigation finance, on the other hand, has been a rather global marketplace right from its origins. Some of the larger funders, including hedge funds, have been focused on major opportunities that have taken them into international markets for specific cases (international arbitration, investor-state arbitration, intellectual property or class action cases) with sufficient size to justify their due diligence efforts and costs. Other funders have specialized in particular case types (e.g. intellectual property) which have enabled them to apply their expertise and networks into vast geographic locales. The globalization of the industry has implications for the return profile of those managers that invest globally in multiple currencies. Some fund managers, like Omni Bridgeway (formerly IMF Bentham), have raised country-specific private partnership funds which directly address the currency issue. As an example, Omni Bridgeway has a US private partnership that was denominated in US dollars and only invests in US cases, thereby negating the impact of currency fluctuations on returns. Other funders have decided that the currency fluctuations are either immaterial relative to their expected returns, or are too difficult or too expensive to effectively hedge, and hence have left investors with the exposure. As an investor in a fund, it is easy to enter into currency hedges to deal with currency fluctuations inherent in a portfolio of homogeneous currencies relative to one’s reference currency. However, the problem becomes difficult to solve when the fund manager invests across multiple geographies (and hence multiple currencies) within a portfolio. In those instances, it is virtually impossible to perfectly hedge the underlying currency exposure unless one is privy to information regarding the date the commitment was provided, the dates of the various funding contract draws, and the amount and date of the expected outcome. Of course, if I knew the answer to these questions on a case-by-case basis, I probably wouldn’t need to hedge (although I may choose to do so to maximize my profits). As if the quantum of case proceeds wasn’t difficult enough, litigation finance is equally uncertain as it relates to case duration, due to the high degree of variability between the date of the commitment and the date of receipt of the ultimate settlement/award, if any. So, in order to shed some light on the issues inherent in currencies, as well as potential solutions as relates to the commercial litigation finance asset class, I have reached out to a large, publicly-listed currency management solutions expert with the following questions: Questions and Answers: Q1. Is currency hedging fairly common in the alternative investment asset market? Market volatility since 2009 has heightened peoples’ awareness on hedging currency risk, with downturns in sentiment seemingly occurring on a more frequent basis. Currency hedging has certainly been more common in assets classes with lower expectations on IRR, such as the private credit market where volatility can remove the return expectations entirely, but in comparison, the unknown exit dates of Private Equity or Real Estate assets have meant hedging currency risk is far less common. However, as mentioned before, volatility from events such as Brexit, the US/China trade war, and now the COVID-19 Pandemic, has meant an increasing number of enquiries about hedging across all asset classes, including Litigation Finance. Q2. What advice do you have for fund managers who invest their funds across multiple currencies? I think the most important thing to consider is whether the GP is undertaking a non-biased opinion on whether to hedge or not. Using an advisor or non-bank allows a GP further insight into hedging risk, where they perhaps haven’t looked, ensuring LP’s are receiving the best possible product or strategy in the fund. Often, a banking counter-party will offer a product to solve an issue, without understanding/knowing the risks behind that problem. A non-bank counterparty has teams of analysts who work with industry-focused partners on fully exploring all risks within each investment fund, not to mention what the competition is doing. The one piece of advice I would give, is to not follow confirmation bias on hedging, and instead explore all avenues to ensure the best policy is being implemented by the GP. Q3. Given that managers typically raise capital on a ‘blind pool’ basis and may invest across multiple-currencies, what are some of the currency management strategies that managers should be thinking about? A3. The four key risk areas where we engage with our clients on currency management strategies are:

Deployment and Exit Risk
Portfolio Risk
Share-Class Hedging – it is becoming more common for fund managers to offer currency nominated sleeves to attract a wider investor base.
Fee Income Risk – if the base currency of the fund differs from the main operating countries of the GP, it may be prudent to look into hedging FX risk on forecastable income.

Q4. Instead of trying to eliminate all currency movements, is there a way to offset ‘black swan’ situations related to large currency fluctuations (similar to what we have seen with the GBP volatility in the context of Brexit), using perhaps a ‘collar’ type strategy? A collar allows you to participate up to a certain level, however, if the market exceeds that level, you may not be able to participate. It is important to get the best advice on an option if you feel that is the best strategy for your requirement. Again, utilising a non-bank counter-party is key to ensuring your LPs receive the most effective strategy for the fund to which they are committing. Q5. Can you comment on the cost of hedging and how those costs can vary based on the solutions applied (options vs. forward purchases vs. other)? Q5. The present interest rate environment across most G10 countries allows for a significantly reduced cost in hedging risk both on the forward and options market. This means funds can now actively hedge tenures of 5yrs+ via relatively low-cost hedging solutions, where previously they could not, particularly against USD and EM currencies. The cost of hedging differs per the product used, of course. And one thing that’s important to note, is an advisor will not only ensure you receive transparent pricing, but will also allow you to explore unique solutions, which in turn could reduce cash drag to the fund. To the extent readers of this article would like to be connected with the currency management solutions provider referenced above, please email me and I will make an introduction. Investor Insights For investors that are invested in the sector or considering making an investment in the litigation finance market, currency may be an important consideration in risk assessment. Litigation Finance managers may hedge at the fund level, which would be the most appropriate level at which to hedge, given their direct knowledge of the underlying cases and their cashflow requirements, duration and the expected returns. However, it is also possible to hedge at the investor level (albeit less accurately). Given the heightened level of volatility in currency markets, hedging is more appropriate now than ever before, and in certain jurisdictions where there is country specific risks (i.e. UK - Brexit), it remains important. In assessing a manager’s portfolio that invests in various currencies, you must remove the effects of currency when assessing returns, as currency-driven returns lack persistence (positive and negative) to determine the true return profile of the fund.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Public

Announcements Commercial

UK Legal Industry Growth Slows As Covid-19 Impacts

May 13, 2020

The UK Legal Industry generated revenues of £9.34bn in the first calendar quarter of 2020, down 6.6% on the final quarter of 2019. And while there are usually falls between Q4 and Q1 due to seasonal factors, the drop this quarter was the highest in four years, a full one percentage point greater than the drop in the same period in the prior year. The final weeks of March cover the period when Covid-19 was beginning to impact the economy. To put this in context, overall Q1 2020 UK Services Industries turnover was £53.49bn, down 7.6%. Both Legal and Services had however reached record highs in Q4 2019. Legal Industry Woes Augusta recently published analysis of 40 of the UK’s leading law firms which shows that before the crisis hit, 55% had insufficient cash on their balance sheets to cover one month’s bills and 38% could not even fund one months’ staff salary’s from reserves. Louis Young, Managing Director at leading litigation funder Augusta commented on the ONS data: “The Legal Industry in the UK had already started to see growth fall off before the pandemic hit. UK law firms have seen significant revenue falls since lockdown began, Q2 will unfortunately be well below past quarters. Many firms are seeking support for their businesses - the provision of finance from external sources will be incredibly important to their survival as time progresses.” Andrew O’Connor, Investment Manager at Augusta and author of the law firm research said: “Before the crisis, Law firm’s lean approaches to cash management were hailed as improving operating efficiency. However this has also left balance sheets undercapitalised to deal with the prolonged financial shock that is currently unfolding”. Louis Young and Andrew O’Connor are available for interview as required. About The Augusta Research:

In May 2020, Augusta published research based on analysis of the top 40 UK LLPs published accounts.
Data on financial health and stability was analysed to identify potential issues.
The full research report is available on request.

About The ONS Data:

Office of National Statistics publishes regular data on the UK services industry – the Monthly Business Survey
The chart below shows UK turnover for Legal Services (JQ3O) by quarter since 2015. About Augusta Ventures:- Established in 2013, Augusta is the largest litigation and dispute funding institution in the UK by # cases. Augusta’s scale enables us to make decisions in market-leading timeframes and fund cases of any size. - Augusta is organised into specialist practice groups: Arbitration, Class Action, Competition, Consumer, Intellectual Property and Litigation, and sectors: Financial Services and Construction & Energy. - By the end of 2019, Augusta had funded 227 claims. Contact: Leor Franks, Chief Marketing Officer, leor.franks@augustaventures.com, +44 20 3510 2100, www.augustaventures.com

Consumer Covid-19

May 12, 2020

As the whole world struggles with COVID-19, existing economic disparities are heightened, and impossible to ignore. The pandemic has created an environment in which those already living paycheck to paycheck must now grapple with employers, insurers, and others who have let them down during this crisis. JD Supra reports that litigation funders are well-placed to pick and choose which cases they’ll invest in, as we experience massive spikes in litigation. Meanwhile, individuals who have lost their source of income or are being denied a much-needed insurance payout may find themselves at a loss and unable to obtain even a small bank loan to cover expenses. This is where Consumer Legal Funders can be of the most help. In March of this year, Utah Governor Gary Herbert enacted the Maintenance Funding Practices Act, which regulates the industry. Echoing protection laws in Vermont, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and others, this new law requires funding entities to register with Consumer Protection agencies. It also details specific disclosures, requires non-recourse transactions, allows clients to vacate agreements within five days, and prohibits funders from making major decisions about the cases they fund. Unlike other states though, ‘The Act’ doesn’t limit fees that funders can charge. The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) issued a statement in favor of the new law, saying it will encourage transparency and weed out funders with bad intentions. The industry supports not capping fees, as harsh limits on funding fees have placed such a stranglehold on the industry, that consumer funders are no longer operating in those states that implemented fee caps. In the end, the new law should provide clarity of expectation on the client, legal, and funding side of the litigation - and it does so without being too onerous for the industry to operate. As we soldier through a pandemic and subsequent recession, consumers will need access to all of the financing options available to them. Thanks to the new Maintenance Act, consumers will still have the option of obtaining funding as they await their case settlement.

Public

Announcements Consumer

Baker Street Funding Doubles-Down on Funding Efforts into Settled Cases to Help Create Immediate Liquidity for Attorneys and Their Clients Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/4678997#ixzz6MHRUD7vR

May 12, 2020

Baker Street Funding, LLC (Baker Street), a legal funding company located in New York and South Florida, is committing to increasing their litigation funding efforts on settled cases. This type of legal funding provides contingency fee based attorney and their clients with immediate liquidity to help bridge the gap between settlement and payment distribution.

Daniel DiGiaimo, CEO of Baker Street, said, “It is important during these trying times to help our clients get the money they need as quickly as possible. This is why we are not only committed to funding settled case applications the same day that they apply, but to increase our focus and funding efforts on these claims to help plaintiffs and attorneys get immediate liquidity. We have seen settlements delayed all across the country due to the disruption of the court system and we are committed to help both plaintiffs and attorneys find a solution.”

Baker Street is one of the largest funders in the legal finance industry, which consists of companies that provide plaintiffs and their attorneys access to capital throughout the different procedural stages of litigation. Some companies specialize in pre-settlement funding or case-cost financing but Baker Street is one of the only companies that provides a vast array of services to their clients including pre and post-settlement funding, case cost funding and institutional case funding.

Because of Baker Streets access to multiple streams of capital, they can provide funding from as little as $5,000 all the way up to $50mm+, to the applicant, in some cases as quickly as the same day.

To apply for funding, please visit their application page at www.bakerstreetfunding.com/application or call 888-711-3599. Questions can also be emailed to info@bakerstreetfunding.com.

URL: www.bakerstreetfunding.com

Media Contact Company Name: Baker Street Funding Contact Person: Daniel DiGiaimo Email: Send Email Phone: 888-711-3599 Country: United States Website: https://bakerstreetfunding.com/ Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/4678997#ixzz6MHRWKR1b

Public

Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Announces Increase in Commercial Litigation Requests Due to Covid-19

May 12, 2020

CALDWELL, N.J., May 11, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, the Lawsuit Settlement Funding Company, announced that they have launched a new legal funding 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 properly. Legal-Bay sees this as an under-served market and has built a new division to accommodate the needs of this market. Commercial litigation loans were created to assist plaintiffs level the playing field against deeper-pocket defendants who can simply outspend them. Legal-Bay's experience gives hope to plaintiffs seeking lawsuit settlement loans and ease the process of obtaining legal funding. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We're seeing an immediate increase in large commercial litigation requests in our new division. Many of our new clients are individuals who normally wouldn't need capital from their suit. However, in this unprecedented time of work layoffs and business closures, funding is at an all-time high. We have recently raised additional capital and hired new sales representatives to handle our influx." If you're 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 now at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com Legal-Bay has always been a leader in the commercial litigation arena, and have been expanding their traditional personal injury and mass tort litigation to the much larger commercial litigation market involving complex cases that need hefty funding amounts. Typically, these cases have minimum requests of anywhere from $100K to $20MM and take more time to evaluate. Their network of experienced underwriters and investment bankers have over twenty years' worth of experience to handle your commercial litigation funding needs. Legal-Bay offers case funding for all types of commercial lawsuits, including appellate funding and financing, judgement on appeal loans, verdict loans, verdict financing, whistleblower funding, Qui-tam loans, patent infringement funding, copyright infringement loans, law firm loans, case expenses, law firm lines of credit, and more. To learn more, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case. Contact: 60 Roseland Ave., Suite 101, Caldwell, NJ 07006
Email: Info@Legal-Bay.com
Phone: (973) 857-1000
https://goo.gl/maps/epBeCtMoevG1vreC9 SOURCE Legal-Bay

Public

Announcements Commercial

Financial Poise™ Announces “Commercial Litigation Funding-101” a New Webinar Series Premiering May 12th at 1:00 PM CST through West LegalEdcenter™

May 12, 2020

The first episode in this series is titled "An Introduction to a New Yet Old Funding Alternative" and is co-produced by West LegalEdCenter™. It will feature Jeremy Waitzman (Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP); Dave Kerstein (Validity Finance LLC); Christopher Freeman (Burford Capital); Joel Cohen (Stout); and Jeffery Lula (GLS Capital, LLC).

About the Series: Once a fledgling industry predominantly used in the Commonwealth nations, litigation funding has over the past ten years becomes a well-accepted and prevalent practice in the United States. As the industry has evolved, so too have the menu of available products, strategic decisions made by funders and practitioners, and types of investors. This three-part series is geared towards educating attorneys and clients on legal/ethical, strategic, and business decisions when considering litigation funding, and investors seeking to learn about an increasingly mainstream asset class. Panelists include preeminent experts in the field of litigation funding, including academics who have written on the topic, investment managers at preeminent litigation funders, litigators who have used funding products, and independent litigation funding advisors.

About the Episode: Litigation funding is an increasingly-popular tool for attorneys and clients to share the risk and reward of litigation with third-party investors, and for investors to capitalize on the uncorrelated returns generated by legal-driven revenue. This webinar is intended to provide an overview of the topic generally, touching on the “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” “why” and “how’s” behind litigation funding.

To learn more and register, click here.

The webinar will be available on-demand after its premiere. As with every Financial Poise Webinar, it will be an engaging and plain English conversation designed to entertain as it teaches.

About Financial Poise –

Financial Poise has one mission: to provide reliable plain English business, financial and legal education to investors, private business owners and executives, and their respective trusted advisors. Financial Poise content is created by seasoned, respected experts who are invited to join our Faculty only after being recommended by current Faculty Members. Our editorial staff then works to make sure all content is easily digestible. Financial Poise is a meritocracy; nobody can “buy” their way into the Financial Poise Faculty. Start learning today at https://www.financialpoise.com/

Commercial

May 11, 2020

A recent settlement involving Sydney telecom giant Vocus is raising questions about third-party funding arrangements. The debate between common fund orders (CFOs) versus funding equalization orders (FEOs) reached its apex, when Justice Moshinsky’s ruling resulted in a lower payout to litigation funder Woodsford. Global Legal Post reports that Vocus had been accused of making intentionally misleading statements regarding its potential profits. The claim was settled for $23MM. The problem? A common fund order was sought in the case, which would have extended the contractual funding agreement to all members of the class action—including those who did not sign on to the funding agreement. CFOs are popular, especially since a 2016 case involving Money Max v QBE. In this instance, however, an FEO was ordered instead. This ultimately means that the funder will receive a lower payout than they would have realized, had a CFO remained in place. Some assert that this ruling will make litigation funders more reticent to fund class action cases in Australia. Because Woodsford had a reasonable belief that the CFO would be granted, they relied on it when calculating its risks. If it remains unclear which type of funding arrangement will ultimately be imposed, this can impact who gets funding, as well as the specifics of future funding arrangements. Moving forward, it’s unclear whether Australian legal professionals will take steps to mitigate FEOs, in order to make CFOs standard practice in litigation funding cases. Surely, there’s a solution that enables funders to make informed decisions about risks and potential payouts, while not forcing potential claimants into agreements which they never signed up for.

Consumer

May 11, 2020

The story of boyhood friends who became business partners in adulthood should be a sweet one. But the business relationship between personal injury lawyer Sean Callagy and litigation funder Legal Capital Group—run by George Prussin—has definitely gone sour. Legal Newsline reports that LCG is suing Callagy for over $18MM for loans totaling less than $600,000, which were received in 2013. Some of the loans carried a compounded interest rate of nearly 90% per year. Another carried a lower interest rate in exchange for a percentage of payouts in the event of a win. Prussin lent funds to Callagy under multiple business entity names. The funds were intended to help Callagy pursue litigation, including a long and complicated case involving a 2006 plane crash in Russia. Callagy also represented Prussin in multiple cases involving litigation funding, including accusations of fraud. The Law Funder, one name Prussin used while making loans, is listed as the funder for Wilfredo Garcia. He’s perhaps best known for starting a law firm without a law degree. After the crash of Siberia Airlines Flight 778, Garcia amassed 50+ clients for a class action, which he then traded to other lawyers in exchange for a large cut of the contingency arrangement. By the time the case settled, the Prussin-funded suit’s payout was set upon by creditors, Garcia’s ex-wife, and the IRS. Callagy’s firm has offices in Texas, New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Promising to ‘change the way people feel about lawyers.’ Meanwhile, LCG was counting on large payouts in several of Callagy’s cases, which did not materialize. The case between Callagy and Prussin is scheduled for a jury trial later this year.

Commercial

May 11, 2020

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada publicly released the reasoning behind its January decision in a case involving third-party litigation funding. The ruling provides clarity for an earlier act known as CCAA—the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act. The unanimous ruling found that a gaming software company may use third-party funding to pursue a $200MM lawsuit against Callidus Capital Corporation. CBA National reports that in the case against Callidus Capital, they are accused of factual omissions and multiple “faulty actions” with regard to their financial arrangement with Bluberi. As Bluberi moved to secure funding, a judge ruled that Callidus should be shut out, citing that they had acted improperly. Interestingly, the case demonstrates a coming SCOTUS trend of ruling on cases orally and presenting official reasoning later on. Sylvain Rigaud, co-chair of insolvency and restructuring at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, explains that the ruling is a vital one. Extending the improper purpose statute to CCAA is a boon to the pursuit of justice. When an insolvent entity’s only assertion is a litigation claim, seeking justice and maximum recovery for clients are one and the same. Paul Rand, Canadian CIO of Omni Bridgeway, agrees, saying that companies now have an opportunity to partner with a funder to pursue meritorious litigation. This is especially vital in insolvency situations where litigation is one’s only recourse. Rand goes on to say that the normalization and expansion of third-party funding increases overall efficiency, and brings attention to lit fin as an option for clients who might not otherwise pursue litigation.

Commercial

May 11, 2020

The contentious divorce of Putin ally Farkhad Akhmedov and his wife, Tatiana, has produced escalating divorce proceedings for nearly two decades. Lawyers for each party have asserted multiple claims of previous divorces that can’t be corroborated, requests for personal emails between father and son, and now—an accusation of champerty regarding Burford Capital’s funding of Tatiana Akhmedova. Technically, the backing of claims by third-party funders in exchange for profit has been illegal in Russia since feudal times. The Guardian reports that Tatiana was awarded a whopping GBP 453MM in 2016, which is roughly 41% of her husband’s assets. Akhmedov disputes the ruling and claims that he and his ex-wife were already divorced 20 years ago. Documents were presented to this effect but were later determined to be forged. The former Mrs. Akhmedova is also pursuing action against her son for his part in Akhmedov’s refusal to pay the award. Attempts to reap the full award are being backed by Burford Capital. Burford's participation is considered questionable, as Russia has yet to enact laws regarding litigation funding. Lawyers for Akhmedov are demanding to see the details of Akhmedova’s agreement with Burford. They further assert that funding of this type is not permissible in family law cases. Assets include a super yacht, a writing desk once used by Napoleon, art by Hirst and Warhol, and other rare antiquities. Lawyers for the Akhmedovs will reference a recent case in Hong Kong that ruled this type of third-party funding illegal.

Commercial Covid-19

May 08, 2020

The global financial crisis of 2008 brought with it a flood of class action litigation against big banks. A similar wave of litigation is expected in the post-COVID world. Indeed, it might be even more widespread. In recent years, the rules and procedures surrounding the formation of class action suits have become more sophisticated. Advances in the understanding and use of Litigation Finance make pursing class actions less complicated. City AM reports that class action suits are already popular in the US, and the UK is expected to follow suit as big banks are held accountable for malfeasance toward their customers. The thinking in legal circles is that increased litigation is a foregone conclusion post-Coronavirus. Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, has stated that the reality of the Coronavirus is that it will bring about a huge number of legal disputes. Questions surrounding insurance coverage or contract specifics will be plentiful. Expansive access to litigation funding means many of these cases will go the distance in court. Businesses are already forming groups to take on insurers and others who have already refused to meet their contractual obligations during shutdowns and work stoppages. One such group, Hiscox Action Group, is pursuing claims against Hiscox insurance, with funding from Harbour Litigation Funding. The use of social media makes finding claimants for class action suits easier than ever. Combined with the wealth of funding provided by third-party funders, it’s easy to understand why class action suits will be a popular means of seeking recompense after the pandemic is behind us.

Commercial Covid-19

May 08, 2020

The pandemic is far from over, but the steps that legal firms are taking to mitigate it have only just begun. Third-party funders are already seeing shifts in the way firms are approaching them. It’s not surprising that law firms will be creative and proactive in heading off financial woes before they occur—but it is startling how quickly things are changing. Eric Blinderman, CEO (U.S.) of Therium Capital Management, writes on Therium's blog that his firm is already seeing a major upswing in funding requests for single cases. This seems to indicate that some firms are already strapped for liquidity, or that savvy managers are trying to get ahead of the coming money crunch by reducing risks and freeing up funds for other activities. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this, is the fast formation of special practice groups specifically for COVID-19-related cases. These are likely to include securities litigation, breach of contract, insurance recovery, and more. Such groups are already overwhelmed with claims relating to business closures, supply chain issues, and a deluge of other losses. One could argue that COVID-19 has given us a new legal specialty—pandemic management. This unique situation we all find ourselves in is leading to a flurry of change in legal circles that’s bound to permanently impact law in general and litigation funding in particular. It’s fortuitous that lit fin has become so accessible in times when low-income litigants would otherwise have no affordable legal recourse.

Commercial

May 08, 2020

An Australian class-action suit against prominent online entities has taken major strides forward in recent weeks. Targeting Facebook, Google, and Twitter over their refusal to accept cryptocurrency advertising, the case has amassed over one billion Australian dollars. This staggering number makes it one of the largest class action cases in the country. Peakd reports that a detailed analysis of the damages brought about by the ad ban on various types of cryptocurrency services include $110 billion in crystalized loses, and a further $250 billion in un-crystalized losses. The lower volumes and prices caused by the lack of ads ultimately led to a stark devaluation of various cryptocurrencies, multiple failed IPOs, as well as a sharp decline in profits from currency mining equipment. Companies such as Steem experienced a steep lag in growth and engagement on their platforms. In Australia, lawyers are not permitted a share of recovery from cases. In this case, that translates to lawyers working for free. Over the last three quarters, a team of legal experts has worked off-the-clock to collect evidence and conduct research, believing the case to be meritorious. More is needed, though, to take this class action to completion. The case requires a “bookbuild,” which refers to a large number of signups, which are already secured. Also, a Senior Counsel advocate must state that the case has merit and should move forward. Given the numbers here, it seems an attractive option for large litigation funders. It’s estimated that $3-5 million will be needed to take the class action all the way through the system.

Public

Announcements Consumer

Balanced Bridge Funding Provides Financing to Plaintiffs with Awards from Settled Sex Abuse Cases

May 07, 2020

ARDMORE, Pa., May 7, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC ("Balanced Bridge") now offers a special financing program for plaintiffs involved in settled sex abuse cases, who have awards and are interested in receiving a portion of their award upfront. In cases like USC George Tyndall and Larry Nassar, plaintiffs are placed in categories in accordance to their level of abuse. Once they receive notification of their award, they may want to access a portion prior to the anticipated distribution. Balanced Bridge can give them the option to do that. "Our past experience dealing with plaintiffs in these kinds of cases has given us the confidence to move forward with this specially designed program," says Joseph Genovesi, CEO of Balanced Bridge. As a direct funder, Balanced Bridge is able to communicate and coordinate funding to plaintiffs with awards in a matter of days. Rogue gynecologists like Larry Nassar, George Tyndall, and Nikita Levy are well known because of the abuse they rendered to their patients. Each of them was accused of sexual abuse, and because of that, the institutions they worked for were also sued. USC, Michigan State, U.S. Olympics, and John Hopkins University eventually settled with the plaintiffs, costing these institutions millions of dollars. However, with such settlements, the monetary awards the plaintiffs are slated to receive can take a long time to payout. Plaintiffs who have received notification of their award for their settled case and are interested in receiving a portion upfront can complete an application on Balanced Bridge's website. They can also contact the company via email at info@balancedbridge.com or call 267-457-4540.

Commercial

May 07, 2020

In her 65-page decision, Justice Jillian Mallon ruled that the case against Ross Asset Management will go to trial. This came after ANZ Bank filed to have the case thrown out before trial. Ross Asset Management has been called the biggest Ponzi scheme in New Zealand since its went under in 2012. According to the NZ Herald, investors entrusted at least $450 million to Ross Asset Management, much of which was allegedly grossly mismanaged with help from their bank, ANZ. Charges in the class action include breach of trust, misused overdrafts which led to fraudulent fees and interest charges, and negligence. Estimated losses are listed around $100 million, though only $10 million has been recovered thus far. At least 500 investors have signed on to take part in the class action, which is being funded by LPF Group. Their arrangement indicates that LPF Group will get 25% of the award should the case settle by the end of June. If the case goes into July and beyond, LPF will receive 30%. Without funders like LPF, investors may not have been able to organize for a class action of this size and length. The alleged breaches all occurred prior to 2012, which means the case could take more than a decade to reach a conclusion. This is exactly the kind of high-value case where litigation funders can be of the most help to clients who have been wronged by large entities.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Balanced Bridge Ramps Up Funding Efforts to Help Plaintiffs & Attorneys Quickly Monetize Settled Cases

May 06, 2020

Balanced Bridge Funding, LLC (“Balanced Bridge”), a specialty finance firm based outside Philadelphia, is ramping up their legal funding efforts to provide capital to plaintiffs and attorneys working on a contingency fee basis. Balanced Bridge’s post-settlement funding product is specifically designed to help bridge applicants from the time of settlement to final distribution of payment. Joseph Genovesi, CEO of Balanced Bridge, said, “It’s during these difficult times that our services are needed more than ever. This is arguably the biggest upheaval the world economy has ever faced, but we stand ready to help those individuals and law firms waiting for payment from settlement agreements now delayed due to disruption of the courts.” Balanced Bridge is one of the premier direct funders in the legal finance space, which consists of firms that provide financing to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys at different stages of litigation. Some offer pre-settlement funding, others provide case-cost financing, and very few specialize in providing post-settlement funding, which is Balanced Bridge’s flagship product. Many companies in the legal funding space are not direct funders, rather brokers who receive a commission for arranging financing between the plaintiff, their attorney, and the funder. Because Balanced Bridge is a direct funder backed by institutional investors, they are equipped to advance funds between $10,000 and $10 million directly to the applicant within a matter of days. Among the current settled case awards and fees Balanced Bridge can finance include the Route 91 Festival Shooting, Larry Nassar, USC George Tyndall, Roundup, and many more. Balanced Bridge is prepared to fund plaintiffs with settlement awards from a variety of settled cases. Qualifying plaintiffs would receive a portion of their award upfront. In addition, plaintiffs’ attorneys can obtain financing on their fees tied to settled cases. SSDI, Veterans’ Disability, and court appointed attorneys can also secure funding from Balanced Bridge based on their delayed fees. To apply for funding, please fill out this quick form. For more information about their funding process, please call 267-457-4540 or email info@balancedbridge.com. URL : https://www.balancedbridge.com

Commercial

May 05, 2020

Last week, Dealmakers hosted a virtual event titled 'Law Firm-Funder Partnerships in a Time of Economic Uncertainty.' The event was sponsored by Validity Finance, and featured a panel of speakers including Alanna Clair (AC), Partner at Dentons, Jordan Goldstein (JG), Partner and GC at Selendy & Gay, Joshua Libling (JL), Portfolio Counsel at Validity, and Reed Oslan (RO), Partner at Kirkland & Ellis. The panel was hosted by Bob Robertson (BR), Strategic Advisor at Dealmakers. Below are some key takeaways from the event: BR: Let's discuss the genesis of the Working Group's report (the rebuttal to the NYC Bar's controversial opinion that litigation funding may violate fee-sharing), and what the key takeaways are. JG: Rule 5.4 generally prohibits fee sharing between firms and non-lawyers. The purpose of the rule is to protect the professional independence of attorneys. The committee determined that litigation funding of firms or cases where fees are split might violate Rule 5.4. But this doesn’t include funders who work with the client rather than the attorney. The NYC Bar opinion is relevant in terms of persuasive authority, but not enforcement. The working group looked to see if Rule 5.4 needed to be revised. All members wanted to amend this rule to allow firms to work directly with funders. The disagreement was regarding disclosure and consent for clients, and to what degree funders could lend input to lawyers. There are two different proposals outlined—and the group was evenly split between them. Members disagreed on the exact parameters of informed consent. The consensus though, was that Litigation Finance can and should be permitted under ethical rules. The takeaway is that some disclosure will be needed, but there’s leeway in terms of when and how much information should be disclosed. BR: There’s a broad spectrum of opinions on Litigation Finance. How will the current economic climate impact those perceptions? RO: In 2008-2009, litigation funding was hard to find. At the same time, we had a significant uptick in demand in my own firm. This drove the growth of lit fin for many years. Today, I see more of the same. The US has a well-developed Litigation Finance industry. It’s a perfectly valid form of funding, and the demand for risk-sharing will be far greater than it was in 2008. Litigation funders are going to do quite well on this. JL: If you start by looking at the problem from the client and firm perspective, they have a need for revenue, but don’t have capital for payouts. Clients pressure firms, firms look to relieve pressure. Taking that capital and shifting the risk to increase liquidity is becoming more central to a firm’s business model. RO: Litigation Funders can act in ways that law firms can’t. Example: providing capital directly to clients during a case. I see an increase in demand for that kind of financing that can happen based on the value of a case. JG: Funders can also fund just the expenses rather than the whole case. Experts, vendors, etc. Lit fin can bridge the issue for clients with complicated cases. BR: Some funders are willing to enter into single-case transactions with law firms, as long as the return is structured as a multiple, while others are more apt to secure portfolio funding to address Rule 5.4 concerns. What is the panel's reaction? RO: In terms of what I've seen in the market over the years, I think the funders want to get as many portfolio funding deals as they can, to get more money into a portfolio to diversify their returns. And there are times where law firms and clients prefer one-off deals. So I've seen both. There are more single-case deals than portfolio deals, because there simply aren't that many large meritorious portfolios of claims to invest in. BR: How can firms ethically secure funding for themselves and clients? What’s the road map? AC: We’re likely to see a higher number of firms and cases turn to Litigation Finance. So it’s more important than ever not to get sloppy with ethics. There’s a fairly defined roadmap now, unlike in 2008. Work product protects materials, mental impressions of counsel etc. Sometimes work product has to be shared with funders, which carries risk. Executing an agreement to define what will be shared and with whom should be common. There should be an agreement in hand before any information is shared. Communique with the funder is essential to ensure that they can give informed advice. There’s nothing inherently unethical about this relationship. In terms of independence, those paying the lawyer’s fees aren’t allowed to influence their professional judgment—their primary duty is always to the client. RO: We don’t share work product with funders. We’re really careful in not sharing anything that might someday come out. We just don’t do it because not every judge will rule appropriately on this. JG: This law is still developing and there are states that are outliers in terms of disclosure rules. There are proposals moving through congress that would require disclosure in a greater number of cases. Clients should be informed, though this could be more complex in a portfolio sharing situation. Shopping different funding situations is not unethical. The devil is in the details. I’d urge clients to err on the side of informing their clients.

Consumer

April 29, 2020

TORONTO, April 29, 2020 /CNW/ - Easy Legal Finance Inc. a Canadian litigation financing firm, announced today, the acquisition of Seahold Investments Inc. Based in Moncton and established in 2000, Seahold Investments Inc. is one of the first firms in the country to offer pre-settlement lending to personal injury plaintiffs. "We are pleased to add another established and successful firm to the Easy Legal Group of Companies, said Larry Herscu, President & CEO of Easy Legal Finance Inc. This strategic acquisition, in addition to acquiring Rhino Legal Finance in 2018, further demonstrates our commitment to enhance our position as a national litigation lender, with services delivered through strong regional brands, built on a coast-to-coast network of established relationships." "Over the past 20 years, we have built a firm based on the merits of access to justice - providing personal injury plaintiffs with the financial support required through the legal process, says Hubert Seamans, Founder and CEO of Seahold. Easy Legal's reputation for client service is uniquely aligned with ours and I'm pleased to have them further expand our service offering and evolve the firm, for the benefit of our clients and lawyer partners." Mr. Herscu also added that, "The Easy Legal Group of Companies will maintain its mission and remain dedicated to helping those who have been hurt, are in need financial support, in partnership with the plaintiff bar and its service providers. About the Easy Legal Group of Companies The Easy Legal Group of Companies is a Canadian litigation financing firm. Its lending solutions service the personal injury sector including plaintiffs with pending injury claims, their legal representatives and the service providers involved in their cases. The firm is registered to conduct business in Ontario, B.C., Alberta and the Atlantic provinces. Services are delivered through three brands: Easy Legal Finance Inc., Rhino Legal Finance and Seahold Investments Inc. www.easylegal.ca www.rhinofinance.com www.seahold.ca SOURCE Easy Legal Finance Inc.

Public

Announcements Consumer

TriMark Legal Funding Announces Extension of $3,500 Automatic-Approval Pre-Settlement Funding to Aid People Impacted by Coronavirus/COVID-19

April 29, 2020

EUGENE, Ore., April 29, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- TriMark Legal Funding LLC, one of the nation's leading pre-settlement funding companies since 2003, announced today that, due to overwhelming popularity, it has extended its financial relief initiative originally launched on March 24th to provide $3,500 in immediate cash assistance to people nationwide who are currently involved in civil lawsuits and have been negatively impacted by Coronavirus/COVID-19. No ending date has been set. Plaintiffs nationwide are strongly encouraged to apply for risk-free pre-settlement funding from TriMark to take advantage of this truly unprecedented, automatic-approval initiative. Tens of millions of Americans have involuntarily become unemployed due to mandatory stay-at-home quarantines and millions of business closures. TriMark Legal Funding is committed to helping every eligible person by providing $3,500 automatic-approval pre-settlement loans. There are no credit checks, no employment requirements, and no out-of-pocket expenses and lawsuit funding approval is based on the merits of an underlying lawsuit. This offer is available nationwide to plaintiffs in civil lawsuits who need cash now, before their cases settle. To apply right now, please visit https://tlfllc.com/coronavirus-pre-settlement-funding or call (877) 932-2628 and one of our friendly representatives will be happy to assist you. Due to much heavier than normal call volume, the fastest way to receive immediate approval is to apply online. How Coronavirus Lawsuit Loans Work Plaintiffs with qualifying cases* and no prior funding can apply for an immediate $3,500 no-documentation, automatic-approval lawsuit cash advance. Existing clients and anyone with prior settlement loans from any other company are ineligible for this offer. TriMark has eliminated its documentation requirements and has also waived its normal underwriting fees. Here is what TriMark needs: 1). Completed application 2). Copy of plaintiff's driver's license or state-issued ID 3). A brief conversation with plaintiff's attorney Pre-settlement funding agreements are executed electronically via DocuSign and funds can be wired directly into a plaintiff's checking account or sent FedEx Overnight in as little as 24 hours. TriMark can provide non-recourse settlement funding from $500 up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on an individual's case and financial needs. For requests over $3,500, accept the $3,500 first, then request additional funding. Documentation and case evaluation are required for additional funding requests, all requests over $3,500, and all requests requiring the buyout of prior advances. T Thomas Colwell, CEO of TriMark Legal Funding commented, "Many plaintiffs involved in pending litigation were already struggling financially before the Coronavirus pandemic. Now, after nearly 6 weeks of mandatory quarantines and with no real end in sight yet, many of those same people are out of money, out of time, out of options, and they are scared. To make matters worse, months of court closures are going to cause an already lengthy legal process to take even longer. TriMark created this program to be a lifeline to plaintiffs who are in dire financial straits right now and need help immediately." TriMark Legal Funding can consider funding on most personal injury lawsuits including car, truck, motorcycle, drunk driving, and motor vehicle accidents and train, subway, and pedestrian accidents. Catastrophic injuries like crush injuries, burn injuries, spinal cord injuries, and traumatic brain injuries, medical malpractice, and wrongful death. Premises liability cases like dog bites, nursing home abuse, slip and fall accidents, and serious injuries on commercial property. Product liability includes cases like dangerous drugs and defective medical devices such as IVC filters, recalled hip replacements, and hernia mesh. Civil rights violations include police brutality, police misconduct, sexual abuse or assault, prison staff misconduct, and wrongful imprisonment. TriMark also considers employment lawsuits like discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower, wrongful termination, and sexual harassment in the workplace, plus work-related injuries like construction accidents, Jones Act maritime injuries, and FELA railroad workers injuries. Disclaimer – TriMark Legal Funding offers non-recourse lawsuit cash advances. While commonly referred to as lawsuit loans, settlement loans, lawsuit settlement loans, etc., they are not technically loans. A non-recourse lawsuit cash advance requires no monthly payments and repayment is contingent upon a successful settlement or jury verdict. If the case is lost or does not settle, the plaintiff does not repay the advance. *Residents of some states are ineligible for this offer due to state laws or internal funding restrictions. Please see https://tlfllc.com/coronavirus-pre-settlement-funding for restrictions and exclusions. URL: https://TLFLLC.com Contact Information: TriMark Legal Funding LLC 1056 Green Acres Rd #102 Eugene, OR 97408 Email: Info@TLFLLC.com Phone: (877) 932-2628 T Thomas Colwell SOURCE TriMark Legal Funding LLC

Public

Announcements Commercial

Lex Mundi Publishes Interactive Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide For General Counsel

April 29, 2020

HOUSTON, April 28, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Lex Mundi, in conjunction with members of the Lex Mundi Litigation, Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Group, has published the first-of-its kind interactive guide - Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide. This one-of-a kind guide allows users to compare common and civil law attorney-client privilege information for more than 65 jurisdictions around the world -- all in a side-by-side customized report.

Attorney-client privilege differs significantly between states and countries and also between common and civil law jurisdictions. Some civil law jurisdictions do not recognize the privilege but instead protect the information through professional ethics rules or otherwise. At a time of global financial crisis, when companies are struggling to maintain operations and solvency in the wake of supply chain disruption and demand side collapse, companies know that litigation is looming. Now, more than ever, it is important for companies and their counsel to take steps to protect privileged information in anticipation of the litigation to come.

The Lex Mundi Attorney-Client Privilege Guide details what constitutes attorney-client privilege in common and civil law jurisdictions around the world. Specific topics addressed in the guide include:

Elements/Basics
Privilege in Corporations
Litigation Funding
Crime-Fraud Exception
Work Product Doctrine/Litigation Privilege
Other privileges, including accountant-client privilege, mediation privilege and settlement negotiation privilege

Lex Mundi created the guide with the help of Jenner & Block LLP, Lex Mundi member firm for USA, Illinois. David Greenwald, partner with Jenner & Block LLP, explained, "Our goal in creating this guide is to enable counsel and their clients to identify key differences among jurisdictions' laws and to provide citations to primary sources for further research." He added, "The law of privilege, and the differences between jurisdictions, is often misunderstood. This guide provides ready access to this important information."

The guide's interactive and innovative format allows users to search for and download an individual jurisdiction's report or compare multiple jurisdictions in a side-by-side customizable report. The Lex Mundi Attorney-Client Privilege Guide can be accessed free of charge on the Lex Mundi website at: https://www.lexmundi.com/lexmundi/Attorney-Client_Privilege_Guide.asp.

About Lex Mundi Lex Mundi is the world's leading network of independent law firms delivering consistent, high-quality advice that is critical to solving complex cross-border challenges. Our carefully vetted, and continuously reviewed, top-tier member firms uphold the highest-level service standards while offering preferred access to more than 22,000+ lawyers worldwide in more than 125 countries. Supported by client-focused methods, innovative technologies, joint learning and training, member firms collaborate across borders and industries to deliver joined-up solutions focused on real business results for clients.

Through our innovative service delivery model, clients have the ability to assemble an ideal international legal team, with the best lawyers in the jurisdictions that match their unique footprint, flexed to their most significant legal challenges.

Lex Mundi member law firms are located throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean and North America. Through our nonprofit affiliate, the Lex Mundi Pro Bono Foundation, our members also provide pro bono legal assistance to social entrepreneurs around the globe.

For more information, please visit http://www.lexmundi.com and http://www.lexmundiprobono.org.

Public

Announcements Consumer

USClaims Again Named Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider

April 29, 2020

DRB Financial Solutions, LLC, is pleased to announce that its subsidiary, USClaims (www.USClaims.com), America's premier pre-settlement funding company, was recently chosen as America's Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider by the audience of Corporate Counsel, the leading national legal and business news publication for in-house counsel at global companies. The reader ranking survey is directed by The National Law Journal, which asks its readers to help recognize the best legal service providers in the industry. This year's ballot consisted of more than 59 categories ranging from law firm marketing and communications to technology, litigation support, accounting, banking, and insurance. The landmark victory is USClaims' first with Corporate Counsel and comes as the company continues to expand its presence westward from its offices in New Jersey and Florida. USClaims has consistently been recognized as best-in-class across the nation, including California, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington DC. Thank you for your votes and confidence in USClaims as your preferred funding company. We are committed to our mission of providing necessary funds to plaintiffs so you, their attorney, has the time to pursue fair settlements, stated Donna Lee Jones, Esq., President of USClaims. USClaims, established in 1996, is the longest continuously operating pre-settlement funding firm in the United States and has been consistently voted among the best in the nation. In 2019 alone, USClaims earned first place rankings by the audience of The National Law Journal in several categories, including Best Law Firm Funding Provider, Best Case Funding [pre-settlement], Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider and several Hall of Fame awards. In 2014, a Florida-based specialty finance company, DRB Financial Solutions, LLC, acquired the business, a move that has enabled USClaims to assist more customers than ever before. The company offers plaintiffs who are waiting on a lawsuit settlement the opportunity to receive cash before their case is resolved. There are no out of pocket cost, the transactions are non-recourse to the claimant, do not require a credit check, and - best of all - nothing is owed unless the claim is successful. For additional information on USClaims' pre-settlement funding, please call (877) 872-5246 or visit USClaims.com. Funding is subject to approval and is not available in every state.

Commercial

April 28, 2020

Given that the stock market has fallen almost 20% in the last 30 days, securities claims are expected to surge. The need for increased operational funds and asset liquidity makes Litigation Finance an attractive option for companies facing such claims. Burford Capital explains that while opportunities to recover losses are plentiful—recognizing them requires an expertise not every firm is capable of. Portfolio companies that have misinformed investors may be easy to spot, but recovering those losses will require forensic follow-up, intensive research, and a keen legal mind. For asset managers, it’s essential to determine actual fraud from unlucky circumstances or simply not getting the results clients expect. If a company is not doing well financially, how much sense does it even make to sue? Asset managers must determine how long the case will take and whether the expected payout will be worth the effort. Monetizing claims, or a portion of claims, is also a good way to free up operating capital. When a firm like Burford provides monetization capital, it can only be recovered if the case is successful. This means the firm assumes the risk. Monetization can also free up funds for shareholders, or to cover unexpected expenses. Portfolio financing is also a popular solution to cash shortfalls. By funding multiple claims in an array of jurisdictions, risk is reduced for the funder while the cost is lowered for the firm. Typically, the funder provides non-recourse capital in exchange for the commitment to using that funder for all eligible claims. Under usual terms, the asset manager (along with a funding board) decides whether to pursue each claim. Litigation Finance will be key in the coming months as firms struggle with slowdowns and an influx of cases. Knowing how to use the tools at your disposal may make all the difference in the longevity of any law firm.

Commercial Covid-19

April 27, 2020

It’s clear that insurers and policyholders are keeping a close eye on the law as it pertains to pandemics. Clauses in contracts specifically related to viral or biological agents will take center stage in new lawsuits that are sure to spring up after COVID-19 precautions have taken a heavy toll on businesses. Bloomberg Law explains that lawsuits seeking early declaratory judgements are often sought by insurers trying to determine their expected liability coverage in a given situation. In such suits, a judge determines whether or not it’s expected that an insurer should cover (or not cover) a claim. This ruling happens independently of any financial claims arising from the case. Though we’re far from opening businesses up to pre-COVID-19 levels, companies are already filing suits against their insurers. For their parts, insurers are searching frantically for escape hatches to avoid covering the myriad claims arising from COVID-19 shutdowns. Some insurers have already been pursuing the idea that business interruption policies do not cover losses related to viruses or other mass-contagions. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co of America has filed against the firm Geragos & Geragos with this argument in mind. G&G claims to welcome this case, but if Travelers wins, that may cause a ripple effect that winds up devastating policyholders relying on their policies to cover them. No doubt, all eyes will be on cases of this type.

Commercial

April 27, 2020

Convicted of fraud in 2007, Alexander Tugushev is now suing a former business partner. The case is being funded by 17 Arm, a firm advised by a former prosecutor and former foreign secretary, and is raising questions due to the high-profile nature of those involved, and because of the use of Litigation Finance. The Guardian reports that the plaintiff, Tugushev, was convicted of receiving a bribe—an allegation that he has consistently denied—for which he served six years. Tugushev’s assertion is that his former business partner owes him a share of their joint business, valued at $350MM. If recovered, 17 Arm would receive a significant but undisclosed portion. Given that the London case involves a man who was banned from Britain, it’s not surprising that people are paying attention. Some are also asserting that the case is an example of litigation funding inspiring litigation for the purpose of profit rather than the pursuit of justice. 17 Arm’s advisory board lends its opinion on which cases appear to be good investments based on potential recovery and likelihood of success. They defend their decision to fund Tugushev’s case despite his earlier conviction, explaining that everyone has the right to be heard in court.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Tribeca Capital moves into the commercial litigation funding arena

April 26, 2020

NEW YORK, April 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Tribeca Capital Group, LLC, a leading voice in the field of consumer pre-settlement funding, is pleased to announce its new initiative designed to expand its lawsuit client base to include high dollar commercial plaintiffs and the law firms who represent them. "While we began as a firm working primarily with individuals in personal injury cases, we've known for some time that as a company we wanted to head in the direction of funding bigger and more complicated cases," said Rory Donadio, Tribeca founder. "We've got the know-how and the financial resources to make that happen." Over the last ten years, the litigation funding industry has grown exponentially from its roots in consumer litigation over car accidents and medical malpractice. After those initial successes, lawsuit funding companies began financing more complex commercial litigation involving contract and compliance issues, class actions and multi-jurisdictional cases. Tribeca is poised to leverage its growth and experience as a successful investor in personal injury litigation to become a leading funder of plaintiff complex commercial lawsuits. "Litigation is expensive," says Donadio. "Those with worthy cases often find themselves literally priced out of a case because of the resources needed to finance the litigation or to keep the plaintiff solvent during a case that can last months or years." As Donadio explains, other plaintiffs settle for less than their cases are worth because they can no longer afford the time or money to continue the fight. "We help level the playing field. And, just like consumer cases, if a commercial litigant doesn't receive a monetary award, we don't get paid either." Lawsuit funding can also directly benefit the law firms, who often don't get paid until the case settles or the plaintiff wins at trial. Complex litigation can have a strong negative impact on the firm's cash flow. Litigation funding can help alleviate that pressure so that the law firm can focus on the litigation and not on whether it can make payroll. "We've put a lot of work into our platform and have been able to help a lot of people," says Donadio. "I'm proud of the work we've done, and I look forward to these new challenges and taking our experience to the next level."
Since 2016, Tribeca has invested $150M in litigation and helped hundreds of plaintiffs. If you need help funding your case, or if you are a law firm prosecuting a case of any size, consumer to complex commercial litigation, contact Rory Donadio, Tribeca Capital Group, LLC, rdonadio@tribecacapllc.com SOURCE Tribeca Capital Group, LLC

Public

Announcements Commercial

AxiaFunder Returns 94% to Investors Through Second Commercial Litigation Case Win

April 26, 2020

LONDON, April 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- AxiaFunder, the UK's first for-profit litigation funding platform, today announces its second case win, returning 93.75% to investors in just 15 months.

The breach of contract case, which was funded in February 2019, raised £12,000 to enforce an adjudication award against a property developer. The case was favourably settled following a three-party mediation.

It comes after AxiaFunder's first case win produced a 43.00% return in only eight months with no losses to date.

Cormac Leech, CEO and Founder of AxiaFunder, said: "We are pleased to announce our second case win, which has produced solid returns to our investors through an Innovative Finance ISA eligible bond which was 83% principal protected via insurance. Despite market volatility in the wake of COVID-19, litigation funding offers retail and institutional investors an opportunity to diversify their investment portfolio. Unlike equities, litigation funding is uncorrelated to financial markets and the economy, continuing to generate healthy returns to investors while many other assets classes are underperforming in the current economic climate."

AxiaFunder has a strong pipeline of vetted cases that will be launched over the coming weeks. The first of which is the relaunch of a pre-vetted case backing a 'Francovich' claim – an action seeking damages against a Member State for breaching EU law. The VAT dispute claim is being relaunched to reflect a recent unexpected strike-out application during the funding process. AxiaFunder expects a net 5.5x multiple on investor capital if the case wins at trial, which is expected in around 18 months. Risk Warning: Capital at risk and returns not guaranteed.

Despite COVID-19 and the resulting economic headwinds, AxiaFunder's latest investment opportunity – a portfolio of three commercial litigation cases – was fully funded less than 24 hours after the launch of its marketing campaign.

Leech added: "The litigation funding market is expected to grow as COVID-19 increases insolvency litigation. As the UK's first for-profit litigation funding platform, AxiaFunder is well placed to provide access to capital for many of Britain's SMEs, who would otherwise struggle to afford the cost of litigation.

"AxiaFunder takes a stringent approach to vetting cases and only invests in those that have an estimated probability of a favourable outcome for investors of at least 70%. The vast majority of cases settle before trial with AxiaFunder's investors typically getting paid before the claimant which improves returns."

AxiaFunder itself recently closed an equity round raising over £250,000 of working capital, some of which was raised through Seedrs, the equity crowdfunding platform.

To date AxiaFunder has in total raised £775,000 of litigation funding for 6 commercial cases.

About AxiaFunder

Launched in November 2018, AxiaFunder (an appointed representative Share In Ltd) which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 603332) enables both retail and institutional investors to provide funding to claimants who cannot afford to pay for their legal disputes. Investors receive a return on their capital if the case wins, however should note that Capital is at risk and returns are not guaranteed.

Public

Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

2020 Co-Investment Survey Results

April 24, 2020

Survey suggests the litigation finance industry has demand for co-investment capital
Speed to commitment and having a fully funded commitment ranked highest in terms of co-investor characteristics
Most funders expect a co-investment commitment within less than 4 weeks

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

While investors might be attracted to co-investment opportunities, diversification is a strong component to successful long-term investing in commercial litigation finance
Co-investing should only be considered in the context of creating a portfolio, or to add specific exposures to an existing portfolio, but should never be viewed as a single investment

Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal recently undertook a survey of commercial litigation finance participants to obtain a deeper understanding of the extent to which there is demand for third-party co-investment capital. The survey was distributed globally, with the majority of responses coming from constituents in the USA (50%) and UK (18%) markets, or from funders that invested globally (18%). Of the responses, 22% were from advisors/intermediaries and 78% were from funders (with the vast majority of funders having dedicated litigation finance funds). Co-Investment in Litigation Finance Co-investment opportunities are an attractive sub-set of opportunities for many investors in a variety of asset classes, with particular appeal for private equity (buy-out, growth equity, real estate and venture capital) asset classes. However, in the context of litigation finance, an investor needs to take a different perspective when considering co-investment opportunities. Whereas it may be perfectly acceptable for a family office, endowment or pension plan to co-invest in a specific private equity opportunity as part of their larger portfolio, the quasi-binary nature of litigation finance should make investors think twice about how they approach investing in litigation finance. The key difference lies in the probability weighted set of outcomes accorded to each asset class. In a private equity buy-out transaction, a high number produce positive results, and the results vary across a spectrum of potential return outcomes (from 1+ X original investment, to a 5+ X original investment). In litigation finance, even though many cases settle before going to court, there tends to be two outcomes – a win or a loss. The wins are allocated across a tighter spectrum than private equity, and the losses tend to be absolute (with exceptions). Accordingly, due to the quasi-binary nature of the outcomes of litigation finance, co-investing should only be considered where the investors are committed to assembling a portfolio of such co-investment opportunities, and have the ability to assess the fundamental aspects of litigation finance. Alternatively, to the extent an investor has existing investments in litigation finance, but is looking to round out his or her portfolio with specific case exposures to achieve a particular portfolio objective, co-investment opportunities may play a role in that investor’s portfolio construction approach. 2020 Co-Investment Survey results are summarized below: Demand Of the 23 respondents, 70% stated they had a need for co-investment capital, whereas 30% did not. However, 13% indicated that the need for co-investment was occasional, and that sometimes their LPs had pre-emptive rights with respect to investing in those opportunities.

Frequency In terms of frequency of co-investment opportunities, almost 50% of respondents indicated they have from 1 to 5 opportunities in a given year, with just over 20% in the 6-10 range, and a few managers indicating they had 20 such opportunities in a given year. The number of opportunities directly correlated with the size of the funder and the size of the cases they typically finance.

Co-Investor Characteristics Regarding the characteristics that are most important in a co-investment partner, speed to commitment and having a funded capital source ranked the highest, with responsiveness and understanding complex litigation also ranking highly. However, there was not a huge disparity in terms of the importance of the six criteria listed, suggesting that all criteria were factored into their decision-making process. Keep in mind that the compilation of rankings on the chart below is an average of the six criteria, so a high number on the chart should be viewed as being more important (even though that answer drew more 1's and 2's), whereas a low number on the chart should be viewed as less important. For example, 'Speed to Commitment' and 'Having a Funding Capital Source' both received the most 1's and 2's, but their average ranking is the highest and therefore most important. 'Flexible Capital' received the most 6's, but has the lowest average score, and is therefore the least important metric.

When we dive further into the ‘speed to commitment’ characteristic, we find the vast majority of respondents expect a commitment within 3-4 weeks. It remains to be seen if expectations and reality are in alignment, a good question to include in the next survey.

Expected Duration With respect to the underwritten expected duration, most fall within the 12-36 month range, which is consistent with duration expectations for the industry as a whole. However, 30% of respondents did indicate that duration was a function of the type of case being underwritten, with certain case types (patent, international arbitration, etc.) having longer durations and appeal cases having shorter durations.

Co-Investment Structuring In terms of insight into how these co-investment transactions are typically structured, the responses varied. In the ‘other’ category, some respondents indicated they have used a variety of the choices offered, whereas one respondent stated that they received a specified interest in the profits produced by the investment.

Current Co-Investors As it relates to where the current co-investment opportunities are being offered, the majority were offered to other funders, suggesting there is a fair amount of cooperation in the litigation finance marketplace. However, within the ‘other’ category, most respondents suggested it was a combination of all of the choices listed.

This brings to a close the results of our first commercial litigation finance co-investment survey. Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal would like to thank those that participated in the survey for their time and feedback. Our next survey will cover fundraising initiatives by fund managers in the commercial litigation finance sector. We anticipate making the fundraising survey an annual survey so we can track fundraising activities over time. If you would like to participate in future surveys, please contact Ed Truant here to register your interest.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Commercial

April 22, 2020

It’s no secret that Litigation Finance is a profitable and growing industry around the world. With Australia, Asia, Europe and North America all enjoying the fruits of lit fin's labor, is it time for Africa to get in on the act? ICIG explains that there are numerous countries in Africa that have very little in the way of affordable legal aid. But since 2010, lit fin has become an attractive option for banks, insurers, equity funds, and others. Many in the Finance world recall that after the 2008 financial crisis, Litigation Finance proved to be a profitable investment. Some assert that lit fin is an excellent option for investors since it isn’t tied to the rest of the market. How should Africa respond to the expansion of Litigation Finance within its legal system? Consistency will be key in assuring that clients, funders, and legal professionals are all treated fairly and with transparency. African courts are known to be inconsistent in their application of the law, something that must be reigned in if Litigation Finance is to be taken seriously as a viable legal option for businesses, class actions, and individuals. Matters of contingency fee arrangements, and even basic contracts will need to be standardized in their coverage and enforcement to ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules. Trust and clarity between parties is an essential component of successful litigation funding. The rise of third-party funding creates opportunity for any number of businesses, investors, and law firms. Africa has an opportunity to allow Litigation Finance to increase access to justice all over the continent.

106 107 108 109 110 111 112

John Freund's Posts

When Should Clients Seek Litigation Funding?

Inquiry into Class Action and Litigation Funding Fees Goes Forward

Currency Considerations for Litigation Fund Managers and Investors

UK Legal Industry Growth Slows As Covid-19 Impacts

Surge in Consumer Legal Funding Interest Reveals Economic Realities in Wake of COVID-19

Baker Street Funding Doubles-Down on Funding Efforts into Settled Cases to Help Create Immediate Liquidity for Attorneys and Their Clients Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/4678997#ixzz6MHRUD7vR

Legal-Bay Announces Increase in Commercial Litigation Requests Due to Covid-19

Financial Poise™ Announces “Commercial Litigation Funding-101” a New Webinar Series Premiering May 12th at 1:00 PM CST through West LegalEdcenter™

Vocus Settlement Raises Questions On Future of Lit Fin in Australia

Litigation Funder Sues PI Lawyer Despite Boyhood Friendship

Canadian Supreme Court Gives Okay to Litigation Finance

Burford Client Runs Afoul of Champerty Claim in Russian Oligarch Divorce

Class Actions Post Coronavirus—What Can We Expect?

‘Pandemic Management’ is Leading to Surge in Interest in Litigation Funding

Class Action Against Facebook, Google, & Twitter Passes $1B in Claims

Balanced Bridge Funding Provides Financing to Plaintiffs with Awards from Settled Sex Abuse Cases

Ross Asset Management Case Goes to Trial as ANZ Loses Motion

Balanced Bridge Ramps Up Funding Efforts to Help Plaintiffs & Attorneys Quickly Monetize Settled Cases

Key Takeaways from the Latest Dealmakers Event

Easy Legal Finance Inc. acquires Seahold Investments Inc.

TriMark Legal Funding Announces Extension of $3,500 Automatic-Approval Pre-Settlement Funding to Aid People Impacted by Coronavirus/COVID-19

Lex Mundi Publishes Interactive Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide For General Counsel

USClaims Again Named Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider

Is Litigation Finance the Key to Surviving an Economic Downturn?

Declaratory Judgements Sought as Lawyers Prepare for COVID-19 Suits

$350MM Claim Involving Russian Oligarchs Raises Questions

Tribeca Capital moves into the commercial litigation funding arena

AxiaFunder Returns 94% to Investors Through Second Commercial Litigation Case Win

2020 Co-Investment Survey Results

Africa: An Untapped Growth Market for Litigation Funding?

Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts

Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!

Newsletter Signup Form