John Freund – Page 117 – Legal Funding Journal

July 22, 2019

Dividex, the international securities class action broker and case manager, wanted in on a Novo Nordisk class action after the stock shed over $50B in the wake of fraud allegations. The only problem? No litigation funders would bite, given that the Danish Pharma company would have to face the scales of justice on its home turf (international securities actions can no longer be tried in the U.S., pursuant to a 2010 Supreme Court decision). And since funding is needed to get an international securities action off the ground, the deal was dead in the water. Until, that is, Dividex packaged the deal into its own version of a portfolio funding arrangement. As reported in Institutional Investor, Dividex is run by Irwin Schwartz, an attorney who founded law firm BLA Schwartz. Schwartz formed Dividex in 2013 after recognizing a gap in the market - international securities actions cost money to get moving, and funders don't typically have the time or means to source deals themselves (sourcing requires investigating precipitous stock drops and tying those to corporate malfeasance). Hence, Dividex acts a broker and case manager. Schwartz wanted the Novo Nordisk deal, so he bundled it with another high profile Danish securities claim - the Danske bank case (the banks was accused of facilitating Russian money laundering). Schwartz wrangled two of the nation's largest pensions - CalSTRS and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas into the portfolio funding deal. He also secured funding from IMF Bentham, which agreed to accept a fee structure based on the losses of all institutions who participate in the deal (as opposed to a straight back-end percentage or investment multiple). This is the first known case of U.S. institutions grouping together to partner with funders on an international case. Now that Schwartz has broken the mold, expect more examples to follow suit.

Public

Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Pre Settlement Funding Focusing On IVC Filter Cases

July 17, 2019

JERSEY CITY, N.J., July 17, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they continue to see a large volume of IVC filter patients needing cash advances. Top IVC filter manufacturers have recently lost bellwether trials, and Legal-Bay believes this could signal a shift toward settling pending cases within the upcoming months. IVC filters are devices which inhibit blood clots in patients, preventing pulmonary embolisms. 80% of the filters sold are put out by C.R. Bard and Cook, and juries in recent litigation are finding that many of these devices are proving defective. Plaintiffs claim they are dealing with perforations, shifting after implantation, filter fractures, and general ineffectiveness. Cook specifically has already lost a major trial when an Indianapolis jury awarded $3 million to a woman who suffered a cardiac injury from her faulty IVC filter. And with mass tort filings in Florida, Pennsylvania, and California state courts, many more bellwether trials are slated to occur. *As of June 2019, there have been over 9,000 IVC cases filed nationwide. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We are seeing a lot of applications regarding IVC plaintiffs needing lawsuit cash as trials with Bard and Cook loom closer. To date, no settlements have occurred and there are no assurances that Bard or Cook will settle their claims or for what values. Regardless, we continue to aid plaintiffs who've suffered injuries from these devices." If you are involved in an IVC lawsuit and are looking for a pre-settlement cash advance now before your case settles, you can fill out an application form at the company's website: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com Legal-Bay is a leading personal injury pre-settlement advocate, and works directly with many of the top mass tort law firms to provide the best pre-settlement cash advance rates in the industry in as little as 24-48 hours. They urge people who have not yet contacted a lawyer to reach out now; Legal-Bay can assist you with retaining a top IVC lawyer or law firm that works with clients who need funding. All of Legal-Bay's funding programs are risk-free as you only repay the advance if your case is successful. Please apply online at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405

Public

Announcements Commercial

Canadian Innovator JL Energy Transportation Inc. Successfully Defends Patent Challenge From Major Canada/US Pipeline and Gas Processing Companies

July 17, 2019

CALGARY, July 17, 2019 /CNW/ - JL Energy Transportation Inc. ("JETI", more: www.jlenergy.com) announces that it has successfully defended a Federal Court challenge to its gas transportation patent, with the Court confirming the validity of its key patent terms. This endorsement clears the way for JETI's continuation of its license and patent infringement claims against an alliance of major Canadian and US pipeline and gas processing companies. The defendant companies currently include: Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership, Alliance Pipeline Ltd., Alliance Pipeline L.P., Alliance Pipeline Inc., (collectively, "Alliance"), Aux Sable Liquid Products LP (formerly known as Alliance Pipeline NGL, LP) and Aux Sable Liquid Products Inc. (formerly known as Alliance Pipeline NGL Inc.)(together, "Aux Sable"). As previously announced on March 6, 2019, JETI is claiming significant damages as a result of Alliance's and Aux Sable's alleged infringements of JETI's licences and intellectual property rights. Background In the early 1990s a team led by John Lagadin, the founder of JETI, invented a novel and innovative method for more efficiently and cost-effectively transporting enriched natural gas via a single pipeline carrying both natural gas and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin to the lucrative US mid-western natural gas and NGL market. It was a ground-breaking invention that caught the eye of 22 producers, including some of North America's largest energy companies. These companies subsequently formed the "Alliance Pipeline" which went into service December 1, 2000. JETI licensed the technology (subsequently patented in a number of jurisdictions around the world) to the Alliance and Aux Sable companies, who between 1996 and 2000 planned and constructed a 3,848 km pipeline from BC and Alberta to Chicago as part of an integrated energy system to export Western Canadian enriched natural gas to be processed at the US market hub in a world class processing facility. The Alliance Pipeline was one of the most significant infrastructure projects in North America at the time. It has since delivered an average of 1.6 billion cubic feet of enriched gas every day to the Chicago market (more than 1/5th of Canada's natural gas exports). This major success story of Canadian innovation, built on the entrepreneurialism of the JETI team, has provided Canada access to a valuable export market and contributed billions of dollars to Canada's GDP and Alberta's royalty revenues. Proceedings JETI alleges in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Court File No. 1601-06322 that Alliance and Aux Sablehave in recent years used its proprietary and patented technology to transport and process rich natural gas on additional pipelines in British Columbia, Alberta and North Dakota without licence or authorization. Aux Sable subsequently challenged of one of JETI's patents in Federal Court File No. T-1612-16. The Federal Court invalidated claims 9 and 10, but decided that all of claims 1 through 8 of the patent are valid, being the key elements of the technology upon which the Alliance / Aux Sablesystem is built and continues to operate. As previously announced, Bentham IMF Capital Limited ("Bentham"), the Canadian arm of leading global litigation funder IMF Bentham (ASX:IMF) is funding JETI's actions against Alliance and Aux Sable. JETI is represented by MLT Aikins LLP. John Lagadin, President of JETI, said: "We are very pleased to have the Federal Court validate the key claims in our patent. This endorsement allows us to continue our already lengthy quest for justice, and we look forward to a successful outcome once the courts have been presented with the facts in the case. We remain appreciative to have Bentham on board to successfully defend our patent and fund our continuing actions as their significant due diligence, capital at risk, and proven track record, validates our confidence in our long standing claims." About the Defendants The Alliance Pipeline system consists of an approximately 3,848-kilometre (2,391-mile) integrated Canadian and US natural gas transmission pipeline system, delivering rich natural gas from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin and the Williston Basin to the Chicago market hub. The Alliance system delivers, on average, about 45.3 million standard cubic metres (or 1.6 billion standard cubic feet) of natural gas per day. More: www.alliancepipeline.com. Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership (Alliance Canada) owns the Canadian portion of the Alliance Pipeline system. Alliance Pipeline L.P. (Alliance U.S.A.) owns the U.S. portion of the Alliance Pipeline system. Alliance is represented by Rose LLP. Aux Sable commenced operation as part of the Alliance Pipeline and Aux Sable dense phase gas system. At that time, two companies were established, one in the United States, and one in Canada, to manage the natural gas liquids business associated with the Alliance Pipeline. In 2010, a second U.S. company, Aux Sable Midstream (ASM) was established to focus on other midstream developments in the United States. Aux Sable owns and operates a world-scale natural gas liquids extraction and fractionation facility in Illinois near the terminus of the Alliance Pipeline. The facility is currently capable of processing 2.1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas and can produce approximately 107,000 barrels per day of specification natural gas liquid products. Aux Sable's rich gas premiums provide market access to rich gas producers in Canada and the U.S. that cannot be realized through conventional field extraction and local NGL sales. Aux Sable is represented by McCarthy Tetrault LLP. About Bentham IMF Bentham IMF Capital Limited is the Canadian arm of IMF Bentham Limited (ASX: IMF), one of the leading global litigation & dispute financiers, headquartered in Australia and with offices in Canada, the US, Singapore, Hong Kong and London. IMF has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative litigation funding solutions and has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of litigation & dispute financing assets. IMF has been a leading pioneer of litigation financing in Australia since 2001, playing a significant role in the initial steps towards a globalized industry via its international expansion in Canada, the US, Asia and Europe. IMF has a highly experienced litigation funding team overseeing its investments delivering a 90% success rate across 179 completed cases (at 30 September 2018). More: www.benthamimf.ca. SOURCE JL Energy Transportation Inc.

Commercial

July 17, 2019

GoFundMe recently cancelled an Australian rugby player's crowdfunded legal campaign, and the story made international headlines. Now some experts are scrutinizing the ethical and practical concerns of crowdfunding litigation; some of which will sound very familiar to litigation funders, yet others are unique to the crowdfunding niche. According to the Australasian Lawyer, the underlying case involves ex-rugby player Israel Folau, who was fired from Rugby Australia in May after making anti-LGBT remarks. Folau turned to crowdfunding website GoFundMe to fund his legal campaign, only to have the site cancel his campaign on the grounds that his remarks violate their anti-discrimination policies. The case has made both national and international headlines, and has brought crowdfunding legal campaigns into the public spotlight, and raised all sorts of ethical concerns. Chief among them are issues of disclosure and privilege - two subjects very familiar to litigation funders. But there are unique concerns relating to crowdfunding. For one, when crowdfunding a legal campaign, claimants do not know who they are accepting money from. This naturally poses ethical concerns as law firms receive payment from unknown parties (not an issue where litigation funding is concerned). Another concern is whether the crowdfunded campaign waives privilege. Privilege battles have been waged in regard to litigation funding, but funders are sophisticated entities who often consult and advise the claimant's legal team - crowdfunders are not. This creates a potential dilemma and could prompt discovery motions by defense on the grounds that privilege has been waived. The Law Council of Australia is exploring the issue of crowdfunding and considering a regulatory framework. Other jurisdictions may soon follow suit. Courts may also jump into the fray, taking crowdfunding into account when issuing security for costs, for example. Just like litigation funding, the growth of crowdfunding's popularity is spurring calls for greater regulation.

Public

Announcements Commercial

BroadRiver Welcomes Emma Dickson as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

July 16, 2019

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- BroadRiver Asset Management, L.P., a New York based manager of alternative assets announced today that Emma Dickson has joined the firm as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer and a key member of the firm’s management team.

“Legal excellence and outstanding compliance have been hallmarks of our firm since its inception,” said Philip Siller, Co-CEO of BroadRiver Asset Management. “Emma brings to BroadRiver years of diverse experience supervising investment funds and leading compliance teams, both in-house and at leading law firms. We look forward to working with her in building our offerings and providing exceptional service to our clients.”

Ms. Dickson was most recently Counsel to the Investment Funds Group at the Akin Gump office in London, UK. From 2014 to 2017, she was General Counsel at Criterion Capital Management, LLC, a San Francisco-based investment adviser. Prior to joining Criterion in 2014, she worked as an Attorney for Man Investments, focusing on fund launches, securities regulation issues, and general corporate counsel functions. Prior to joining Man in 2008, Ms. Dickson was an associate in the Investment Management Group at Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, where she handled a variety of legal issues related to alternative investment funds.

Ms. Dickson received a B.A. in History from Columbia University and a JD/MBA from Georgetown University Law Center & McDonough School of Business.

BroadRiver, which closed on its third longevity fund in September of 2018, seeks to provide clients with exposure to assets that have compelling risk-adjusted returns, low volatility, and negligible correlation to financial markets. BroadRiver’s highly selective approach to asset selection is underpinned by proprietary analytics and a deep commitment to research, resulting in carefully structured portfolios with strong, predictable cash flows.

Ms. Dickson’s focus will be to add her legal proficiency to the firm’s expertise in structuring and managing the firm’s new and existing funds in a range of non-correlated asset classes. The new strategies include exposure to litigation finance, global trade receivables, and other uncorrelated income assets. She will complement BroadRiver’s management team, positioning the firm to add to its $1.4 billion in assets under management.

About BroadRiver Asset Management

With assets under management of $1.4 billion, the firm focuses on alternative investment management strategies involving non-capital markets assets. It boasts one of the deepest and longest-tenured longevity-risk investment teams, having served institutional clients for almost twenty years.

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

Commercial

July 16, 2019

After being tossed out by the High Court, the $4 billion Therium-funded Google class action has reached the UK Court of Appeals. The lead applicant, Richard Lloyd - a former consumer rights organization director - is claiming Google owes 4.4 million Brits hundreds of pounds each for its nefarious 'Safari Workaround' software, which was allegedly used to spy on iPhone users. As reported in The Register, the claim covers all UK citizens who used Safari's browser on their iPhone between June 2011 and February 2012. During that time, the suit alleges, Google tricked Safari into installing a cookie on its browser that allowed the Tech giant to snoop on users as they browsed the internet. This is in direct violation of the Data Protection Act of 1998. Google has already paid extremely modest fines (less than $50MM) to US regulators over the Safari Workaround scandal. But Lloyd and Therium are attempting to bring a US-style class action (technically a representative action, since the UK does not do class actions) which aims to secure billions of pounds for millions of UK citizens. Therium will collect up to 50% of any payout, and is allegedly paying Lloyd a salary of £50k for up to four years to act as frontman for the claim. A High Court ruling last year squashed the case before it had a chance to even get going. Now, in the Court of Appeal, Lloyd and Therium are hoping to jumpstart their multibillion-pound claim.

Commercial

July 16, 2019

Law firm Phi Finney McDonald and litigation funder Therium Capital Management are filing a class action which alleges that Domino's underpaid delivery drivers and in-store workers. Estimates put the total claim amount around AUD $100MM. As reported in Livewire Markets, the action is being brought on behalf of employees at Domino's franchises between June 2013 and January 2018. The suit to recapture the difference between the company's enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) and the amount workers would have been compensated has no EBA been in effect. Domino's total savings under its EBA agreement is around $200MM, and it has been roughly estimated that half of its franchisees are covered under the claim - therefore the total claim amount has a rough estimate of AUD $100MM. So far, only 1,000 workers have signed up for the class action, which means any payout would be far less than the above amount. That said, Phi Finney and Therium are actively courting more claimants. Domino's insists its EBA was still valid through January of 2018, and therefore intends to vigorously defend itself in court. The company's EBA expired in June of 2013, yet no subsequent agreement was put into place. Therefore, the company will argue that its EBA remained in effect (even though it expired). Domino's stock took a brief hit on news of the action, but has quickly recovered.

Public

Announcements Consumer

Defrauded Investor Hires Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to Help Enforce $6 Billion Award Against a Member of Qatar’s Ruling Family

July 16, 2019

DOHA, Qatar, July 15, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The Swifthold Foundation, which was defrauded by Sheikh Fahad Bin Ahmad bin Mohamed Bin Thani and his Qatari company, Fast Trading Group, today announced that it has hired Akin Gump, the international law firm, to help advise and obtain finality through enforcement of the Qatari court's acknowledgment of the UK High Court judgment. The representation will be led by Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Senior Advisor, Member of Congress (Ret) and former Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Swifthold recently won a key decision that will allow enforcement of its UK High Court judgment in Qatar, according to Delta Capital Partners, the American litigation finance and support firm that the foundation has retained. On April 28, 2019, the Qatari Court issued a Writ of Execution allowing Swifthold to seek enforcement of the English court judgment against Sheikh Fahad Bin Ahmad bin Mohamed Bin Thani, a prominent member of the Qatari royal family, and Fast Trading Group. Ros-Lehtinen stated, "I have agreed to help obtain finality through enforcement of the Qatari court's acknowledgment of the UK High Court judgment. It is past time to right these wrongs. Qatar needs to see that this judgment is enforced in accordance with internationally accepted judicial standards and without further delay." Sheikh Fahad is a member of the Qatari royal family. He has defrauded a family foundation, now run by its founder's widow, and other global investors. The highest court in the UK, where until recently the Sheikh and his family have lived and drawn from its quality of life, has leveled a judgment of nearly $6 billion for the damages caused by his fraud. A spokesperson for Delta stated, "We are pleased to have Ms. Ros-Lehtinen on our team, given her experience advocating fair dealings in the Middle East." A spokesperson for the Swifthold Foundation commented, "We are hopeful that this expanded team, which won the judgment and now the writ of execution, will help prompt a timely resolution." The Qatari law firm that obtained the writ of execution reports that the first hearing date with the enforcement court on July 4, 2019 was successful and the Court is now proceeding with enforcement. The Court on its own motion will now contact various agencies and financial institutions to commence enforcement against the defendant's assets. A spokesperson for Delta stated, "We look forward to this key step of enforcing the judgment against the Sheikh's assets." For additional information, please visit http://sheikh-fahad-judgment.com/. SOURCE Delta Capital Partners

Commercial

July 15, 2019

Anyone involved in litigation would love to have a crystal ball to help predict how things will pan out. If one UK-based startup is to be believed, that crystal ball may already exist. As reported in National Magazine, CourtQuant is leveraging AI software to predict case outcomes. The startup's 23-year old founder - Ludwig Bull - says his main clients are litigation funders and insurance firms, and has aims to bring global law firms aboard as well. CourtQuant claims to maintain 90% accuracy when predicting win rates for specific lawyers, the likelihood of a settlement, and even timelines for cases. The startup is based in the UK, but looking to expand to the U.S., Canada and globally. Litigation funders would be among the first to sign up for any software that can accurately predict such outcomes, given that they are investing capital into those very outcomes. CourtQuant even claims it can provide a specific estimate of how much the plaintiff is likely to win. However, AI is only as good as its data sets, and there is a concern over the quality of legal data sets, given that out-of-court settlements are not a matter of public record and therefore not included in the data. So how accurate can the software really be? Add to that the need for large amounts of data to enhance the predictive ability. Which means that in jurisdictions like Canada, with under 40 million people and both a common and civil law legal system, there might simply not be enough outcomes for AI to make an accurate prediction. Yet despite these concerns, the promise of AI is too great to ignore. As such, many funders are actively sourcing software providers to give them that all-important predictive edge. Only time will tell if startups like CourtQuant are worth the investment.

Commercial

July 15, 2019

Law firm Adina Thorn is bringing a class action - funded by Harbour Litigation Funding - on behalf of homeowners who experienced damage to their properties due to leaky cladding installed by the James Hardie multi-national conglomerate. The James Hardie parent company is based in Ireland, and attempting to exclude it and all international subsidiaries from liability, leaving the New Zealand holding company as the sole defendant. However, Thorn claims the New Zealand holding company is balance sheet insolvent, and that the parent company should therefore be on the hook. As reported in Stuff, the claim comprises thousands of properties build or re-clad with James Hardie cladding between 1983-2011. As a result, the potential payout is in the many millions of dollars. According to Thorn, the James Hardie New Zealand holding company maintains a balance sheet deficit of $5.8MM - thanks to a $13MM dividend paid to the parent company in Ireland. Thorn also claims that the company owes $43MM in debts and unpaid loans. Thorn cited the New Zealand holding company's poor financials as reason to include the parent company in the lawsuit. Although the James Hardie parent company has been moving to extract itself from liability, it has so far bee unsuccessful. Thorn is bringing a similar cladding class action against Carter Holt Harvey, which argued that Thorn's use of litigation funding - in this case, also from Harbour - was 'objectionable' and that the law firm should have sought permission from the court before bringing a funded claim. The High Court swatted down both of those arguments, however, and the funded class action has been permitted to proceed.

Commercial

July 11, 2019

Kirkland & Ellis - the nation's largest law firm by gross revenue - has announced plans to expand its contingency-fee practice with the launch of a division that focuses on the high risk/reward fee arrangement. Kirkland has represented over 100 plaintiff-side cases on a pure contingency basis over the past decade, and now seeks to expand that number by as much as 10x. As reported in Big Law Business, the move by Kirkland comes as the firm has produced significant wins on its contingency-only business model. Just last month, the law firm secured an $82MM verdict for Bracket Holding Corp. in a pure contingency claim. Kirkland - which until now has been mostly focused on defense - is following in Quinn Emanuel's footsteps of pursuing pure contingency fee claims. The class action specialist won over $30 billion in lawsuits by suing big banks in the wake of The Great Recession. Kirkland also hasn't been shy about partnering with litigation funders. In 2015, Kirkland represented Miller UK, an equipment manufacturer suing Caterpillar Inc. in an IP claim over a piece of machinery. Miller UK leveraged litigation funding from Arena Consulting, and eventually scored a $75MM award thanks to Kirkland and Arena's participation. Of course, Kirkland's latest announcement places the firm in direct competition with litigation funders. At least on paper. Should Kirkland overstretch itself (as can happen if cases drag on longer than expected), the law firm may soon turn to litigation funders for what essentially amounts to bridge financing, or perhaps a secondaries market.

Public

Consumer Special Features

What Does it Mean to Live Paycheck to Paycheck?

July 09, 2019

The following was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). According to Investopedia: “Paycheck to paycheck is an expression used to describe an individual who would be unable to meet financial obligations if unemployed because his or her salary is predominantly devoted to expenses. Persons subsisting paycheck to paycheck have limited or no savings and are at greater financial risk if suddenly unemployed than individuals who have amassed a cushion of savings.” According to Forbes, 78% of workers are living paycheck to paycheck. That statistic encapsulates more than just hourly workers. Investopedia states that 25% of American families making $150,000 or more a year live paycheck to paycheck. So what happens when that paycheck gets interrupted and bills don’t get paid? Answer: consumers fall behind on their mortgage, rent, and credit card payments. As a result, credit scores suffer and the financial spiral grows more severe. A recent article published by The Center for the New Middle Class classified ‘loss of income’ as the number one reason credit scores go down. For consumers who have suffered a loss of income due to a car accident or other personal injury legal claim, a solution exists: Consumer Legal Funding. Consumer Legal Funding acts as a bridge for consumers to solve their financial dilemmas while waiting for their legal claim to make its way through the system. There are no credit checks, there are no periodic payments while the case makes its way through the legal system. Consumers only have to meet their obligation to the funding company when and if their case settles and only if there is sufficient funds to meet the commitment. Consumer Legal Funding is not a loan, as it does not have an absolute certainty of repayment. Consumers only have to meet their financial commitment to the funding company when and if they are successful in their legal claim. Therefore, the product is not a loan. It is an opportunity for consumers to sell off a portion of their legal claim (a future asset) as an investment. Like any investment, when consumers look to take advantage of Consumer Legal Funding, they should be fully aware of the cost associated, and the terms and conditions of the contract. Consumer Legal Funding is a financial transaction that is designed to fill in the gap due to the loss of one’s paycheck as a result of circumstances beyond their control. It is designed to help consumers get the fair and just settlement they deserve, and not be forced into accepting a low-ball settlement offer just because they are living paycheck to paycheck.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Pinsent Masons Agrees to £25M Litigation Funding Facility with Augusta

July 04, 2019

International law firm Pinsent Masons has agreed an innovative £25m litigation funding facility with the UK’s largest* litigation and disputes funder Augusta Ventures. The unique arrangement offers clients the benefit of a dedicated facility at preferred rates, including a fast-tracked due diligence process and transparent commercial terms.

Under the fair and transparent terms of the agreement, Augusta will fund the entire cost of pursuing the claim, including all lawyer and expert fees and any other costs. The arrangement is "non-recourse" meaning the claimants pay nothing if the claim fails. Augusta only recovers its costs and fees from sums received from the Defendant or any other paying party.

Mark Roe, leading on Third Party Funding for Pinsent Masons, comments on the driver for the agreement:

"We know that the costs of pursuing a justified claim often deter our clients from obtaining justice and recovering money due to them. Often, even if clients have funds available, they prefer to invest them in their business rather than in pursuing claims. We wanted to address that problem. I believe our arrangement with Augusta will provide Third Party Funding to our clients efficiently, quickly, on clear terms and at lower cost. We've been able to negotiate considerably better terms than our clients would typically receive from Funders if we or they made an individual approach to the market."

Augusta Managing Director, Louis Young, said:

“We’re delighted to be working with top international firm Pinsent Masons on funding litigation and disputes for their clients. Augusta has built a market leading team and process for enabling access to justice, and we are looking forward to helping Pinsent Masons' clients secure the support they need to pursue meritorious claims”.

The litigation funding facility is the latest in a series of innovative offerings from the firm.

Alastair Morrison, Head of Client Relationships at Pinsent Masons says:

"Our clients are operating in industries that are experiencing profound change. We're investing in services that help them to respond to these tectonic shifts, changing our business from an expertise-based law firm into an international professional services business with law at its core. This means that we don't just apply lawyers to solve clients' problems; we deploy a wider range of professional disciplines, enabled by process and technology, to collaborate with our clients and others in the legal ecosystem to help them achieve their goals. This arrangement with Augusta is another example of how we seek to respond to our clients' challenges. "

Within the last three years Pinsent Masons has acquired diversity and inclusion consultant, Brook Graham, expanded its freelance lawyer hub, Vario, into Australia and Asia, and deployed a range of bespoke legal technology solutions built and tailored to client requirements by its 46-strong in-house R&D team.

Notes:

Augusta’s funding is deployed in tranches based on key procedural and settlement milestones in the case.
A fast-track process for reviewing claims eligible for funding is managed by a joint committee from Pinsent Masons and Augusta.
Funding will only be provided if Augusta and Pinsent Masons are satisfied that based on analysis at the date funding is sought the majority of any sums recovered (after payment of Augusta's funding costs and fees and any insurance premium for potential liability for opponents costs) will go to the client.
TPF can be provided at any stage throughout the life of the case, not just at the beginning.
In the event of an unsuccessful outcome, Augusta will bear all the costs incurred and any costs payable by the claimant to a successful Defendant will be covered by After the Event ("ATE") Insurance.
If the outcome is a successful resolution of a funded claim, Augusta will be repaid the funds deployed, plus a success fee based on the amount of funds deployed at date of resolution. The level of fee is dependent on the time taken to make a recovery.
This framework is intended to facilitate settlement as the amount that a client repays is based solely on the tranches of funds deployed at the date of resolution and the sooner the case settles the less the success fee.
Pinsent Masons does not receive any commission or other payment from Augusta as part of this arrangement

About Augusta

Augusta is the largest litigation and dispute funding institution in the UK* - with £150m of capital and a team of 70 in London our scale enables us to make decisions in market-leading timeframes and fund cases of any size.

*=by number of cases.

About Pinsent Masons

Pinsent Masons is a global 100 law firm, specialising particularly in the energy, infrastructure, financial services, real estate and advanced manufacturing and technology sectors. The firm employs over 3000 people worldwide, including around 1500 lawyers and more than 400 partners. The firm's international footprint encompasses seven offices across Asia Pacific, two offices in the Middle East, six offices in continental Europe and one in Africa. The firm also has comprehensive coverage across each of the UK's three legal jurisdictions.

Pinsent Masons LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered number: OC333653) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and by the appropriate regulatory body in the other jurisdictions in which it operates. The word ‘partner’, used in relation to the LLP, refers to a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant of the LLP or any affiliated firm who is a lawyer with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP, and of those non-members who are designated as partners, is displayed at the LLP’s registered office: 30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES, United Kingdom.
We use ‘Pinsent Masons’ to refer to Pinsent Masons LLP and affiliated entities that practise under the name ‘Pinsent Masons’ or a name that incorporates those words. Reference to ‘Pinsent Masons’ is to Pinsent Masons LLP and/or one or more of those affiliated entities as the context requires. © Pinsent Masons LLP 2017.
Pinsent Masons office network extends across the major international business centres of London, Dublin, Munich, Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, Madrid, Paris, Doha, Dubai, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Johannesburg, Sydney Melbourne and Perth - and the key commercial centres in the UK.

Commercial

July 01, 2019

With the U.S. Chamber of Commerce leading the effort to regulate - or even fully abolish - litigation funding, the nascent industry has already made some powerful enemies. The 'War on Funding' is being waged on many fronts, among them is the inevitable PR battle. Fortunately for the funding community, when engaged in a PR campaign the industry can highlight its roots as a mechanism for 'David v. Goliath' cases to get off the ground. According to Forbes, with the pursuit of social justice now a national theme, litigation funders can and should leverage those tailwinds when responding to the onslaught of negative press the industry receives. Funders like Pravati Capital, for example, have battled wrongful imprisonment cases, IP theft claims and cases against harmful pharmaceuticals. Pravati founder and CEO Alexander Chucri hails from the Tech sector - he was a successful entrepreneur before founding the Arizona-based litigation funder. The emergence of industry participants from outside the legal community illustrates just how mainstream the notion of 'David v. Goliath' has become. Chucri's realization that there was market opportunity for funders who finance the Davids of the world came after his involvement in a 2003 lawsuit which left him marveling at the lack of innovative financing structures for legal claims. Every funder, regardless of how well-capitalized, has those David v. Goliath cases under their belts. It behooves them to highlight those cases, given the spotlight that is being shone on the more opaque aspects of the industry, like the desire for funders to remain undisclosed, and the (unfortunately unprovable) assertion that they never influence legal strategy. Like the plaintiff's bar, litigation funding can be viewed as implicitly regulatory; it fosters increased accountability amongst the business community. So even though funders are profit-seeking, they are doing plenty of social good along the way.

Commercial

July 01, 2019

The Law Commission of New Zealand suspended its examination of litigation funding last year due to resource constraints, but in the wake of several high profile class actions funded by local and global litigation funders, the commission is now resuming its review of litigation funding. As reported in the LawFuel, at least seven litigation funders are operating in New Zealand. Funding has only taken off in the island nation over the last decade, as opposed to in neighboring Australia where funding has been commonplace since the 1990s. Aussies are debating the merits of funding, especially as pertains to fueling large, US-style class actions. Now it appears New Zealanders are joining the debate. Recent actions include the kiwifruit claim and Mainzeal class action (both funded by LPF Group), and the Fair Play on Fees action taken on behalf of over 20,000 claimants against multiple banks, said to be the largest class action in New Zealand history at the time. The New Zealand Law Commission will consider whether funding should be permitted in class actions, whether courts should have a role in approving and supervising funding agreements, what regulatory framework should be applied to litigation funders.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Nick Rowles-Davies appointed as Chairman of the Commercial Litigation Association

July 01, 2019

The Commercial Litigation Association (CLA) today announces that Nick Rowles Davies, Executive Vice Chairmanof Litigation Capital Management (LCM) andFounder andCEO ofChancery Capital, hasbeen appointed as Chairman, effective immediately. Nick has been involved in the litigation finance and legal expenses insurance industries since 1999, making him one of the most experienced practitioners in the space. He created and defined the concept of portfolio litigation finance and is the global leader in identifying, creating and executing litigation finance portfolios. Nick, the former Director of the Association of Litigation Funders of England & Wales, said on his appointment as Chairman: “I am delighted to be involved in the CLA at such an exciting stage of its growth and I strongly identify with the association’s core values. The commercial litigation landscape is undergoing significant change and it’s great to be at the forefront of that change.” A pioneer in the development of the litigation funding industry in the UK and the common law world globally, Nick has led its transformation from third party funding, through litigation finance and now into a broad-based corporate finance offering. In 2010, Nick co-founded a family office-backed global litigation funding business before serving as Managing Director of Burford Capital, leading it globally outside of the Americas. He then founded Chancery Capital with a focus on corporate client portfolios before the Chancery team joined LCM in November 2018. Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, who joined CLA as Patron in January this year, congratulated Nick on his appointment and commented: “The United Kingdom has an enviable international reputation for its commercial law and its commercial solicitors, barristers, judges and arbitrators. The quality and diverse nature of the legal professionals involved in the Commercial Litigation Association will help to ensure that we maintain, indeed enhance our high standards and international reputation.” Everyone at CLA is thrilled to have Nick Rowles Davies and Lord Neuberger on board. NOTES 1. The website of the Commercial Litigation Association is www.comlit.co.uk 2. For further comment or information on the association please contact Chris Nisbet, Commercial Director of CLA and Senior Partner of SMF on +447802330100 or chris@somuchfront.com 3. The Commercial Litigation Association is the UK’s only national association representing the interests of all those involved inthe business of Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution. Its members are drawn from a range of professions including solicitors, barristers, mediators, forensic accountants, insolvency practitioners, third party funders, insurers and electronic disclosure providers. Its key aim is to enhance access to justice for those involved in commercial disputes through increasing efficiencies and reducing costs of the litigation process.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Litigation Capital Management (AIM: LIT) – Portfolio and Pipeline Update

July 01, 2019

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT) (LCM), a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, today provides an update as to its portfolio and pipeline of litigation projects as at 30 June 2019. Current Portfolio LCM currently has a portfolio of 29 projects under management. 23 of those litigation projects are unconditionally funded and 6 projects are conditionally signed. The composition of the portfolio is as follows: Commercial Claims 8 Class Actions 9 International Arbitration 5 Insolvency Claims 5 Corporate Portfolios 2 Since LCM’s last announcement in relation to its portfolioon 28 May 2019, the projects whichare now unconditionally funded include: A class action brought in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on behalf of members of superannuation funds administered by Suncorp Portfolio Service Limited (“Suncorp") alleging that Suncorp breached its duties to avoid conflicts, act with due care and diligence and to act in the best interest of its members. A commercial claim involving proceedings in two separate jurisdictions seeking to recover funds which it is alleged were not paid to the claimant in breach of contract. A commercial claim to be brought in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of a fashion designer seeking damages or an account of profits as a result of alleged trademark infringement. An international arbitration governed by the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) relating to a construction project in the middle east. Current Pipeline The current pipeline of pre-qualified opportunities continues to demonstrate the large and diverse investment opportunities within the company. LCM currently has approximately 59 pipeline projects across a mix of litigation financing including commercial, international arbitration, insolvency, class actions andcorporateportfolios. The estimatedpotentialinvestment across those 59projects exceeds A$380 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. Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, said: “LCM is ina period ofsignificant growthand wearepleased that this is reflectedinthe recent additions to our portfolio of litigation projects. Such increase demonstrates LCM’s ability to complete the due diligence process with respect to opportunities that were included in its pipeline at the time of IPO. It also demonstrates that LCM’s experienced team of investment managers are able to source and conduct due diligence on new opportunities to maintain a consistent and healthy pipeline of potential investment of a high value and quality. This will fortify LCM’s ability for future growth. These new projects are diversified across claim size, claim type and jurisdiction, contributing to a balanced portfolio.” CONTACTS Litigation Capital Management Patrick Moloney, Chief Executive Officer Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Director Canaccord (Nomad and Broker) Bobbie Hilliam / Emma Gabriel Hawthorn Advisors Lorna Cobbett / Zinka MacHale Tel: 020 7523 8000 lcm@hawthornadvisors.com Tel: 020 3745 4960 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 since December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT. www.lcmfinance.com

Public

Announcements Commercial

Litigation Capital Management (AIM:LIT) announces conditional settlement of litigation project

June 28, 2019

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, announces that a conditional settlement has been reached in respect of one of its litigation projects. The conditional settlement is expected to contribute a gross profit to the Company of approximately A$2.7million to A$3million, with all capital invested by LCM also being recovered. The project relates to an open class action commenced in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of certain persons that suffered loss as a result of making investments in an allegedly fraudulent investment scheme. The terms of the settlement areconfidential, andthe settlement is subjectto conditions whichinclude Court approval. LCM will make a further announcement with the financial metrics of this litigation project once the conditions of the settlement are met. Class actions represent one of several types of litigation projects that LCM provides funding for in addition to single-case and portfolio funding, as well as international arbitration, commercial claims and claims arising out of insolvency. Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, said: “The conditional settlement of this litigation project is further demonstration of LCM’s experience and expertise at funding class actions in Australia and our ability to achieve strong returns on invested capital. Class actions constitute a significant part of LCM’s heritage, and we see these cases continuing to make up part of our portfolio whilst we continue to diversify our portfolio by project type, claim size and geography.” Litigation Capital Management Patrick Moloney, Chief Executive Officer Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Director Canaccord (Nomad and Broker) Bobbie Hilliam / Emma Gabriel Hawthorn Advisors Lorna Cobbett / Zinka MacHale Tel: 020 7523 8000 lcm@hawthornadvisors.com Tel: 020 3745 4960 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 since December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT. www.lcmfinance.com

Public

Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Expanding Mass Tort Case Funding List

June 27, 2019

LOS ANGELES, June 27, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay, LLC, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they will be expanding their list of mass tort lawsuits available for funding. Legal-Bay is known as one of the best lawsuit funding companies when it comes to mass tort cases. Legal-Bay works directly with most of the top mass tort law firms nationwide to provide the best pre-settlement cash advance rates for their clients, and have recently expanded their mass tort department to further provide funding for brokers across the country. If you are involved in a pending lawsuit and are looking for a cash advance now before your case settles, you can fill out an application form at the company's website: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com Mass Tort cases typically take a while to go through the courts, and values of these cases can sometimes be unknown. However, Legal-Bay's experienced underwriting team in mass tort litigations is able to quickly evaluate the claims and provide a needed cash advance. Plaintiffs who have had issues with the below cases could be eligible to receive pre-settlement funding in as little as 24 – 48 hours. You must have a lawyer to obtain funding. If you do not have a 3M law firm or attorney on any of the below cases, feel free to contact Legal-Bay and they can put you in touch with a top 3Mear plug lawyer.

Hernia Mesh
Trans Vaginal Mesh
Essure Birth Control Device
IVC Filters – Bard and Cook Products
Round-Up Weed Killer Exposure
Metal on Metal Hips
Mesothelioma/Asbestos
3M Government Earplugs

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay commented, "We are aggressively funding a multitude of active mass tort cases at this time. We have always been a leader in the industry due to our experience. We now have opened the door for the first-time to many brokers who have clients that need presettlement funding on both mass tort and personal injury cases as well." If you are a broker or law firm looking to partner with Legal-Bay to obtain the best rates for plaintiff presettlement cash advances, feel free to call: 973.857.1000. To apply now, go to the company's website at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com

Public

Announcements Commercial

New Research: CFOs Are Ready To Help GCs “Recession-Proof” The Legal Budget

June 27, 2019

NEW YORK, June 27, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Burford Capital, the leading global finance and investment management firm focused on law, today announced the results of a groundbreaking new survey that asked Chief Financial Officers to share their views on how companies deal with the billions they spend annually on legal disputes. 2019 Managing Legal Risk Report: A Survey of CFOs and Finance Professionals reveals that CFOs see this as an urgent business challenge—especially ahead of a potential recession that will put pressure on companies to use their cash wisely—and that they are eager to partner with General Counsels to embrace innovative new solutions, including legal finance. Christopher Bogart, Burford's CEO, said of the research: "As a former GC of a Fortune 20 company, I know that CFOs don't love legal spending. However, Burford's research shows that CFOs, particularly at large companies, embrace legal finance as a tool to manage and improve control over legal spending, even more so ahead of a possible recession when it is so important to create certainty around corporate budgets." He continued: "CFOs intuitively grasp that legal finance is simply corporate finance for law, no different from the financing they use to pay for other corporate costs, and a far better alternative than paying out-of-pocket or abandoning valuable legal assets." Key findings, based on data from 502 CFOs and senior finance professionals in the US, UK and Canada, include:

Companies are losing millions to abandoned claims and unpursued recoveries
A majority of finance professionals (63.0%) say their companies have abandoned meritorious claims given fears of adversely impacting the bottom line; over three fourths (77.6%) say their companies have unenforced judgments and uncollected awards valued at $10 million or more.
A recession will cause legal budgets to shrink and legal finance to grow
A majority of CFOs and senior finance professionals (66.9%) report that in the event of an economic downturn they would advocate reducing legal budgets; still more (67.3%) say that a recession would make them more likely to advocate using legal finance.
CFOs and finance professionals see legal finance as a tool to generate value
The vast majority of CFOs and finance professionals (94.7%) are likely to recommend legal finance. The most commonly cited reason for using legal finance is to "pursue claims that will bring value to the business." Finance professionals at companies with over $10 billion in annual revenues say the top benefits of legal finance are "investing in growth/using capital wisely", "preserving capital for other business priorities", and "reporting and accounting benefits".
Following growth in the last two years, legal finance looks poised for more
Nearly two-thirds (65.1%) say their companies are "very likely" to use legal finance in the next two years. This trend is even more pronounced at companies with annual revenues of more than $1 billion (71.4%).

The full 2019 Managing Legal Risk Report: A Survey of CFOs and Finance Professionals is available on Burford's web site and will be discussed in two upcoming webcasts; see Burford's event calendar for details. About Burford Capital Burford Capital is a leading global finance and investment management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange, and it works with law firms and clients around the world from its principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, Singapore and Sydney. For more information about Burford: www.burfordcapital.com.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Vannin Capital’s Ania Farren Appointed as New Chair of ICC’s Arbitration Program

June 27, 2019

John Beechey, one of the biggest names in international arbitration and former President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, is retiring from his position as Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce's (ICC's) Arbitration programme in the UK, passing the torch on to his successor, Ania Farren, Managing Director of Vannin Capital. Ania will take up the reins from 20th June, supported by Iain Quirk from Essex Court Chambers and Guy Pendell from CMS, whom we welcome as a new Vice Chair in the UK leadership team.

John has been pivotal in the transformation of ICC’s UK arbitration programme since 2015, appointing a raft of global arbitration experts to the UK committee, setting up a new Selections Subcommittee to improve UK nominations to the ICC International Court of Arbitration and appointing Iain Quirk as UK Arbitration Consultant. John has long been a driver for positive change and a champion of arbitration in the UK, helping to bring on a new generation of leaders into the field, promoting the role of women and ensuring that the UK remains the number one contributor of arbitrators to the ICC International Court of Arbitration. He steps down as chair of the Arbitration programme, but will remain a member of the UK Board of ICC.

ICC’s UK programme provides a unique forum to build national consensus on international rules for arbitration, nominate representatives to ICC’s international fora, promote ICC products and services and manage the nominations of arbitrators to the Court.

Ania Farren – previously Vice Chair – has been appointed as John’s successor. A highly regarded lawyer internationally, Ania was appointed to the Arbitration & ADR Committee in 2015 and has been Vice Chair of the Committee since 2017. ICC looks forward to Ania carrying on John’s good work and bringing her own fresh approach and experience to the role. Guy Pendell (CMS) has taken up the position of new Vice Chair and will serve alongside Iain Quirk (Essex Court Chambers) as the second Vice Chair. Together, the UK will be led by next generation arbitrators under the leadership of the first female UK chair.

Also joining the Committee are Charlie Caher (WilmerHale), Kim Franklin QC (Crown Office Chambers), Milo Molfa (Cleary Gottlieb), Richard Smith (Allen & Overy), Ricky Diwan QC (Essex Court Chambers), Sara Masters QC (20 Essex Street) and Simon Rainey QC (Quadrant Chambers).

The Committee is busy building on the success of London International Disputes Week in May and working on the next ICC Arbitration & ADR Commission meeting in Paris in the autumn, to be followed by the annual ICC Arbitration Conference in London in November 2019.

ICC is the world’s largest business organisation representing 45 million companies and 1 billion employees from all sectors and company sizes in over 100 countries. We are the only business organisation with UN Observer Status. ICC United Kingdom is the representative office of ICC in the UK and works with British business groups worldwide to represent the voice of British business at inter-governmental level - the United Nations, G20 and World Trade Organization. For further information, please visitwww.iccwbo.uk

Public

Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces 50″ HDTV Promotion for Month of July

June 26, 2019

NEWARK, N.J., June 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding announced that they have recently broken their own record for presettlement funding last month. The premier lawsuit settlement funding company credits the increase in sales to their quick turnarounds, their effective marketing, and their talented team of underwriters who are able to offer the best customer service in the industry. Legal-Bay provides presettlement funding for almost any type of lawsuit, including motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, personal injury, wrongful conviction, death, or termination, sexual harassment/abuse or discrimination in workplace, and any civil cases where the plaintiff has already retained an attorney. Legal-Bay has been a proven leader in funding a wide variety of lawsuits due to their over 15 years of expertise. If you have an active lawsuit and need legal funding, Legal-Bay may be able to assist you immediately. To apply online, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call the company's toll free hotline at 877.571.0405. Chris Janish, CEO, commented, "With the launch of our new TV commercial, and our record month in funding, we want to reward one of our lucky new clients in July with a new 50-inch HDTV. Our customer service team prides themselves on delivering to our clients, and this is another way to show our appreciation to clients that provide us with the opportunity to fund them in their time of need." View it here: LEGAL-BAY TV COMMERCIAL In order for a chance to win the free TV, you must fund between July 1 and July 31. Any and all clients that fund for a minimum of $2K for the month will be eligible for a random drawing the first week of August. Legal-Bay's non-recourse programs are not a lawsuit funding loan, lawsuit loans, presettlement loan, presettlement loans, pre-settlement loan, or pre-settlement loans as many clients may think. Pre-settlement funding is merely an immediate cash allowance given in advance of a plaintiff's impending monetary award. The cash advance is risk-free, as the money does not need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. To apply right now, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by. SOURCE Legal-Bay LLC

Public

Commercial Special Features

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

June 21, 2019

One of LCM’s key areas of focus since its IPO has been the origination and execution of corporate portfolio transactions. The recent announcement of a portfolio funding partnership with a major aviation company, in which LCM will finance 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the company for an initial 5-year rolling period, underscores the funder’s commitment to its corporate portfolio funding strategy. The transaction was led by Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies, who leads LCM’s EMEA team, comprised of some of the most experienced practitioners in the industry at corporate portfolio funding. Thanks to Rowles-Davies’ leadership and the team’s expertise, this is the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM in past 12 months, and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm announced in March. The first of LCM’s portfolio transactions was announced in October 2018, and was in the building and construction sector. LCM remains one of only a handful of funders to have completed such a transaction type. The funder also currently has eight other portfolio deals in the pipeline. Perhaps no better evidence could be proffered of litigation funding’s growing awareness and understanding amongst corporate clients – at least within certain capital-intensive industries. As Rowles-Davies puts it: “Everyone has heard of ‘litigation finance,’ but they don’t necessarily understand what it entails. To many, it still means bringing big claims against corporates and they don’t appreciate that it is a form of financing that can support a company by monetizing its legal assets, removing the risk of litigation, increasing EBITDA and keeping costs off the balance sheet. Some sectors are certainly more aware of the benefits available through the use of litigation funding and these are typically businesses in sectors that are high-volume, low-margin; for example, aviation, construction and outsourcing." By financing multiple claims at once, funders like LCM reduce their risk profile, which results in a more attractive pricing structure for the client than when cases are funded on a one-off basis (one-off cases carry binary risk, therefore the cost of capital is higher). On this latest transaction, LCM has maintained the optionality to extend the number of cases it will finance, as well as the cumulative size of the financing available. “When we are structuring corporate portfolios for our clients, we look to be as flexible as possible and try to directly address the problem that they are looking to solve by providing a bespoke solution,” Rowles-Davies adds. “This provides businesses with complete optionality as to how they fund their disputes, moving to a position of using funding out of choice, rather than necessity. This is totally different from a single case situation where often a distressed and impecunious party is being funded.” London-based law firm Clyde & Co. helped arrange the funding partnership between LCM and the unnamed airline. This type of arrangement underscores the win-win nature of a partnership between a dedicated funder and an individual law firm. According to Rowles-Davies, this type of partnership “is not that common, but I suspect we will see more arrangements like it as funding becomes more widely used.” Rowles-Davies is quick to point out, however, that LCM has relationships with multiple law firms, and that agreements such as its partnership with Clyde & Co. don’t guarantee exclusivity. “This is about picking your partners carefully – we want to work with people who understand how LCM operates and what we’re looking for, and it takes time to develop that understanding.”

Commercial

June 19, 2019

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA 20 JUNE 2019: IMF Bentham (ASX:IMF) (operating in the US and Canada as Bentham IMF) announces the launch of a new US$500 million fund (‘Fund 5’) to underwrite non-US disputes around the world.

Fund 5 is IMF’s second non-US Fund and is being launched only twenty months after the launch of the first non-US Funds (‘Funds 2 & 3’) and only five months since Funds 2 & 3 were upsized in January 2019. Fund 5 also closely follows the launch in November 2018 of IMF’s second US Fund (‘Fund 4’). IMF is increasing its fund capacity in direct response to the exponential growth in demand for dispute resolution finance around the world and IMF now has close to A$2 billion in combined funds under management globally. IMF Managing Director and CEO, Andrew Saker says: “IMF is experiencing strong market demand for funding across all jurisdictions. Since 2015 IMF has recorded an 85% increase in the number of non-US funding applications and a 149% increase in US funding applications. Demand for dispute resolution finance is growing as a result of increased awareness, the increasing costs of arbitration and litigation and regulatory changes in some jurisdictions which now allow parties to seek dispute resolution finance. Demand is particularly strong in Asia and Canada where dispute resolution finance is still relatively new but it is becoming a mainstream global financial product.” How will the capital be invested? Fund 5 will invest in disputes outside the US, including Australia, Asia, Canada and the EMEA region, providing finance for law firms, companies, groups and individuals, across a broad range of dispute types including insolvencies, group actions, international arbitration and commercial litigation. Who are the investors in Fund 5? Fund 5’s initial size is US$500 million and investors have the option to roll into a successor fund on the same terms, to increase the overall new capital commitments to US$1 billion. IMF committed US$100 million in cash to Fund 5 and remaining funds were contributed by external investors, reflecting the strong investor confidence in IMF’s business. IMF is increasingly a fund manager and investment adviser whose investors include endowment funds, foundations, investment professionals and family offices. The principal external investors in Fund 5 are:

• Funds managed by, and investors represented by, Partners Capital Investment Group, LLP (Partners Capital). Partners Capital (www.partners-cap.com) is a leading outsourced investment office based in London, Boston, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore which manages over US$24 billion on behalf of endowments, foundations, investment professionals and family offices. Partners Capital’s Phoenix II Fund is also an investor in IMF’s Fund 2 and Fund 4.

• Funds managed by Harvard Management Company (Harvard), Amitell Capital and Balmoral Wood. Harvard is a US based manager of institutional investment funds and funds managed by Harvard are also invested in IMF’s Fund 4. Amitell Capital is a Singapore based private investment firm, which is also an investor in IMF’s Fund 3 and Fund 4. Balmoral Wood is a Canadian fund-of funds investor specialising in dispute resolution finance.

How is Fund 5 structured? Fund 5 is an exempted limited partnership incorporated under the laws of Cayman Islands formed for the purpose of making investments in non-US dispute resolution finance investments via wholly owned subsidiary entities. IMF Bentham Cayman Advisory Services (IMF Advisory), a newly established wholly owned subsidiary of IMF, is the appointed investment advisor of Fund 5. Further details are available here. About IMF Bentham Ltd IMF is one of the leading global dispute resolution funders, headquartered in Australia and with offices in the US and Canada (where it operates as Bentham IMF), Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK. IMF has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative funding solutions and has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of dispute resolution funding assets. IMF has a highly experienced dispute resolution funding team overseeing its investments. We have an exceptional success rate over 187 completed investments and have recovered over A$1.4 billion for clients since 2001. For further information regarding IMF and its activities, please visit www.imf.com.au.

Consumer

June 19, 2019

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

June 14, 2019

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

June 14, 2019

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

June 13, 2019

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.

Public

Announcements Commercial

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

June 13, 2019

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

Public

Consumer Special Features

Why is There an Assault on the Poorest Amongst Us?

June 12, 2019

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)

John Freund's Posts

How Dividex Packaged a Pair of Danish Class Actions for Litigation Funding

Legal-Bay Pre Settlement Funding Focusing On IVC Filter Cases

Canadian Innovator JL Energy Transportation Inc. Successfully Defends Patent Challenge From Major Canada/US Pipeline and Gas Processing Companies

The Perils of Crowdfunding Litigation

BroadRiver Welcomes Emma Dickson as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

$4 Billion Therium-Funded Google Class Action Sees Light of Day in UK Court of Appeal

Domino’s Could Be on the Hook for AUD $100MM in Therium-Funded Class Action

Defrauded Investor Hires Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to Help Enforce $6 Billion Award Against a Member of Qatar’s Ruling Family

UK-Based AI Firm Aims to Predict Case Outcomes for Litigation Funders

Concern About Defendant Insolvency in Harbour-Funded New Zealand Class Action

Kirkland & Ellis Launches Contingency-Only Plaintiff-Side Practice

What Does it Mean to Live Paycheck to Paycheck?

Pinsent Masons Agrees to £25M Litigation Funding Facility with Augusta

‘David v. Goliath’ Mindset Gives Funders a PR Edge

New Zealand Law Commission to Reevaluate Litigation Funding

Nick Rowles-Davies appointed as Chairman of the Commercial Litigation Association

Litigation Capital Management (AIM: LIT) – Portfolio and Pipeline Update

Litigation Capital Management (AIM:LIT) announces conditional settlement of litigation project

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Expanding Mass Tort Case Funding List

New Research: CFOs Are Ready To Help GCs “Recession-Proof” The Legal Budget

Vannin Capital’s Ania Farren Appointed as New Chair of ICC’s Arbitration Program

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces 50″ HDTV Promotion for Month of July

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

IMF Bentham launches new US$500 million Fund in response to increased worldwide demand for dispute resolution finance

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

Litigation Funding for the Restaurant Industry

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

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

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

Why is There an Assault on the Poorest Amongst Us?

Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts

Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!

Newsletter Signup Form