Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3138 Articles
Case Developments Commercial

£25M Settlement Agreement Reached in South Western Trains ‘Boundary Fares’ Claim

As LFJ reported last year, several UK train operators have become the target of collective proceedings over claims that the rail companies failed to offer customers with lower-cost ‘boundary fares,’ and instead sold them more expensive tickets from central London. In a significant milestone, the claim brought against one of these operators appears to be approaching a conclusion, as the parties announced they have reached a settlement agreement. In a press release issued earlier this week, Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited (SSWT) and class representative Justin Guttman announced that they had reached a settlement agreement to end the claim brought against the train operating company. As part of the settlement agreement, the train operating company said that it would pay up to £25 million to eligible class members, describing it as “the largest settlement in the history of the collective proceedings regime in the UK”. The claim was brought against SSWT in 2019 over allegations that the train operator “had not made 'boundary fares' sufficiently available for Travelcard holders to purchase.” The claimants were represented by Charles Lyndon, whilst the proceedings were financed by Woodsford Group Limited. The announcement stated that the law firm and funder were “pleased to have been able to secure this outcome for class members without the necessity for the Parties to pursue the matter to trial.” The settlement agreement, which was published on the Boundary Fares claim website, states that the train companies deny “the existence of a dominant position and also any conduct which could amount to an alleged abuse of a dominant position” or that the class members “have suffered any loss or damages as a result of any of the conduct” that the proceedings alleged. However, it says that in order to end the legal proceedings “and avoid unnecessary legal and other costs”, all the parties have agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement. As emphasised in the settlement notice, “the Proposed Settlement relates to SSWT only and does not settle the claim against the other Defendant, First MTR South Western Trains Limited.” The first trial for the claim brought against the latter defendant is set to be heard on 17 June 2024. The settlement agreement will now be considered by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with a hearing listed for 29 April 2024.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Unified Patents’ General Counsel Calls for Mandatory Disclosure of Litigation Funding

It has been a long-held position of critics of the litigation finance industry that a lack of strict disclosure regulations represents a threat to national security. Unsurprisingly, the recent Bloomberg Law investigation into Russian oligarchs allegedly skirting sanctions through litigation funding has renewed these calls to actions. In an opinion piece for Bloomberg Law, Jonathan Stroud, general counsel at Unified Patents, argues that the latest revelations around foreign entities involvement in litigation funding demonstrates both the necessity and the urgency for new rules governing transparency and disclosure. In the article, he argues that the litigation finance industry “needs an overhaul to build in transparency”, suggesting that anything less than significant regulatory changes will allow “other countries to profit off the US judicial system and circumvent sanctions.” Whilst Stroud describes these changes as an ‘overhaul’, he suggests that it would be as simple as the judiciary introducing “a long-overdue tweak to existing Rules 7.1 and 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” He points out that the Judicial Conference is already aligned with this position, having been considering mandatory disclosure requirements as early as 2017. However, Stroud paints the judiciary as “characteristically slow to act”, and argues that it is time for either the judiciary or, if necessary, Congress to move forward with these changes. Looking at the attitude of funders faced with the potential of increased transparency, Stroud claims that “funders have opposed transparency by lobbying against it; writing letters, op-eds, and articles; and spending lavishly on events with sitting judges.” Instead of this position, he argues that both funders and investors should support self-disclosure, otherwise they may “get caught in a wave of over-enforcement down the road.”
Commercial Regulatory Issues

NYC Bar Association Proposes Amendments to Rules Governing Fee Sharing

Discussions around the regulation governing litigation funding are often focused on the decisions made at the legislative or executive levels of government. However, when it comes to assessing the rules for third-party funding within US states, it is clear that state bar associations play an equally important role in setting the playing field for litigation funders. An article in Bloomberg Law covers developments from the New York City Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee, which has proposed changes to state rules governing the sharing of legal fees outside of lawyers and their firms. The two proposed amendments are for Rule 5.4(a), which would allow lawyers to share fees with litigation funders to secure third-party funding for their cases. Whilst these amendments would prove beneficial for litigation funders, the changes would ensure law firms still act independently of any funding arrangements and require lawyers to inform their clients over any relevant financing agreements. The Professional Responsibility Committee explained its proposed changes, stating that the existing rules assume “that one type of financing has the power to corrupt a lawyer’s professional ethics more than any other financial arrangement with a non-lawyer.” The Committee argued that this kind of presupposition “is an exercise in paternalism”, which it said it “cannot justify” after conducting its own research. For these proposed amendments to be adopted into New York’s regulations, they will be sent to the State Bar Association of New York for review and approval. If the association agrees with these changes, the amendments will go to the New York State Supreme Court’s appellate divisions for final approval.
Announcements Deals

QUINN EMANUEL AND LONGFORD CAPITAL TO OFFER LITIGATION FUNDING TO PRIVATE EQUITY CLIENTS

In a groundbreaking agreement, Longford Capital Management, LP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP announced a litigation financing offering for private equity (PE) firms and their portfolio companies. Under the terms of today’s deal, Longford has committed up to $40M in equity capital to Quinn Emanuel’s private equity clients involved in litigation, funding attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and monetizing the value of meritorious legal claims.

The agreement provides Quinn Emanuel’s PE clients and their portfolio companies with an alternative method of funding litigation and enables those clients to treat meritorious legal claims as corporate assets capable of being monetized. Longford provides funding for disputes in several areas of law applicable to PE clients, including antitrust, intellectual property, and a variety of contract, tort, and fraud claims.

“Quinn Emanuel likes to innovate, and we have already partnered successfully with Longford on several occasions to produce excellent results for clients,” said Jonathan Bunge, Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s National Trial Practice and Managing Partner of the Chicago office. “This latest collaboration will serve the interests of our private equity clients seeking alternatives and options in pursuing meritorious litigation.”

“We have identified a particular ability to assist private equity managers and their portfolio companies involved in commercial disputes,” said William Farrell, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Longford. “We look forward to assisting Quinn Emanuel by providing its private equity clients with attractive financial options.”

With litigation funding, portfolio companies and their private equity sponsors can pursue valuable, meritorious claims and monetize the value of those claims without risk or delay, accelerating liquidity and fueling growth, Farrell noted.

About Longford Capital

Longford Capital is a private investment company that provides capital to leading law firms, public and private companies, universities, government agencies, and other entities involved in large-scale, commercial legal disputes. Longford was one of the first litigation funds in the United States and is among the world’s largest litigation finance companies with more than $1.2 billion in assets under management. Longford offers a broad range of capital solutions to funds attorneys' fees and expenses and otherwise manage the financial risk of pursuing meritorious legal claims in return for a share of a favorable settlement or award. The firm manages a diversified portfolio and considers investments in subject matter areas where it has developed considerable expertise, including, business-to-business contract claims, antitrust and trade regulation claims, intellectual property claims (including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret), fiduciary duty claims, fraud claims, claims in bankruptcy and liquidation, domestic and international arbitrations, claim monetization, insurance matters, mass actions and class actions, and a variety of others.

About Quinn Emanuel

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is a 1000+ lawyer business litigation firm—the largest in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration with 34 global office locations. Surveys of major companies around the world have named it the “most feared” law firm in the world three times. Firm lawyers have tried over 2,500 cases, winning 86% of them. When representing defendants, Quinn Emanuel’s trial experience gets better settlements or defense verdicts. When representing plaintiffs, Quinn Emanuel lawyers have won nearly $80 billion in judgments and settlements. Quinn Emanuel has also obtained seven nine-figure jury verdicts, four 10-figure jury verdicts, 51 nine-figure settlements, and 20 10-figure settlements.

Quinn Emanuel has been named the No. 1 “most feared” law firm by The BTI Consulting Group three times in its annual “Most Feared Law Firms in Litigation” guide, in which in-house counsel named 46 firms they “want to steer clear of” when it comes to litigation. The American Lawyer named Quinn Emanuel the top IP litigation firm in the U.S. and the firm as one of the top six commercial litigation firms in the country. The UK legal periodical, The Lawyer named us “International Firm of the Year.” Law360 has most recently selected us as having Banking, Class Action, International Arbitration, and Trials “Practice Groups of the Year.” Managing IP twice recognized us as having the “Best ITC Litigation Practice” and honored us with the “Patent Contentious West” award. Legal Business has named us “US Law Firm of the Year” three times, and our German offices have twice been named both “IP Litigation Firm of the Year” and “Patent Litigation Firm of the Year” by JUVE, Germany’s most prestigious legal publication. Global Investigations Review, a leading legal periodical covering global white-collar investigations, named us the “Most Impressive Investigations Practice of the Year.” Global Arbitration Review named us the 3rd best arbitration practice in the world. Global Competition Review named our antitrust and competition practice among the “25 Global Elite,” and has included us in their list of the world’s top 10 competition litigation practices.

Announcements Commercial Deals

Legal Finance SE Announces Acquisition by Nakiki SE

Legal Finance SE, which has been aiming for an IPO for some time, has been acquired by the listed company Nakiki SE. The shares of Nakiki SE have been traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange since 9 April 2024 under ISIN DE000WNDL300 / WKN WNDL30. Nakiki SE will soon operate under the name Legal Finance Holding SE. In a strategic decision, Legal Finance SE, a pioneer in litigation Finance, announces its acquisition by the listed company Nakiki SE (ISIN DE000WNDL300, WKN WNDL30). This acquisition is not only a significant step for both companies, but also marks the indirect IPO of Legal Finance SE, which will take the company to new heights. Legal Finance SE, known for its innovative approach to litigation Finance, will significantly expand its reach and influence through this acquisition. The acquisition by Nakiki SE not only provides Legal Finance with access to the capital markets, but also opens up new avenues for innovation and growth in the ever-changing world of litigation Finance. This acquisition is in line with the company's vision to make legal protection more accessible and fairer and sends a strong signal for the future of the industry. For clients and partners of both companies, this development means increased support and expanded services aimed at facilitating access to quality legal services worldwide.
Case Developments Commercial

Italian Supreme Court Provides Ruling on Registration Requirements for Litigation Funders

In jurisdictions where litigation funding is still in its early stages, it is instructive when the courts are forced to deal with questions around the legality of third-party funding. A recent decision published by Italy’s highest court has offered some insight into the country’s legal system and its current attitude towards litigation funders. In a post from RP legalitax, Paolo Grandi examines a judgement handed down by the Italian Supreme Court last month, which found that litigation funding firms are not required to be registered under Article 106 of Legislative Decree No. 385/1993 (‘Testo Unico Bancario’ “TUB”).  The Supreme Court’s judgement related to a case from the Justice of Peace in Busto Arsizio, where a claimant seeking compensation from an airline had sold their claim to a funder. The Justice of the Peace ruled that the purchaser of the claim was not entitled to the compensation, as the agreement between it and the claimant was invalidated by the fact that they were not registered under the TUB regulations. The claimant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal in Busto Arsizio which upheld the appeal in July 2021, only for the airline to then bring a challenge of the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the airline’s challenge and, in its decision published on March 19 2024, stated that the ““the Court of Appeal, in solving this case, was compliant with what this Court has already affirmed in the different hypothesis of the assignment of the credit for compensation for road accident damages, namely that it is possible to assign such credit pursuant to Articles 1260 et seq. of the Italian Civil Code.” The Supreme Court went on to clarify that this kind of transaction “does not even imply any financial activity subject to authorization pursuant to Article 106 TUB.”
Commercial People Moves

ALFA Welcomes Litica as Newest Associate Member

In a post on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA) announced that it is welcoming Litica as its newest Associate Member. Litica becomes the 11th Associate Member of ALFA, joining the likes of FTI Consulting, Piper Alderman, and William Roberts Lawyers. Since its launch in 2019, Litica has grown to become a leading provider of commercial ATE insurance in the UK and has since built a global footprint by expanding its operations to Australia in 2022. As part of this expansion, Litica appointed Philip Lomax to the position of Managing Director for Asia Pacific, with Lomax leading Litica’s Australian offering from Sydney. As LFJ reported in November 2023, Litica followed its expansion to Australia by establishing a European presence through a new office in Cologne (Köln) Germany, with Ed Yell appointed as Managing Director of Litica Europe GmbH.
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event “Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives”

On Thursday April 4th, 2024, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event titled "Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives." The panel discussion featured Bobby Curtis (BC), Principal at Cloverlay, Cesar Bello (CB), Partner at Corbin Capital, and Zachary Krug (ZK), Managing Director at NorthWall Capital. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital. Below are some key takeaways from the event: If you were to pinpoint some factors that you pay particular attention to when analyzing managers & their track records, what would those be? BC: It's a similar setup to any strategy that you're looking at--you want to slice and dice a track record as much as possible, to try to get to the answer of what's driving returns. Within litigation finance, that could be what sub-sectors are they focused on, is it intellectual property? Is it ex-US deals? What's the sourcing been? How has deployment been historically relative to the capital they're looking to raise now? It's an industry that is starting to become data rich. You have publicly-listed companies that have some pretty interesting track record that's available. I'm constantly consuming track record data and we're building our internal database to be able to comp against. Within PE broadly, a lot of people are talking about DPI is the new IRR, and I think that's particularly true in litigation finance. If I'm opening a new investment with a fund I've never partnered with before, my eyes are going to 'how long have they been at it, and what's the realization activity?' There is also a qualitative aspect to this--has the team been together for a while, do they have a nice mix of legal acumen, investment and structuring acumen, what's the overall firm look like? It's a little bit art and science, but not too dissimilar from any track record analysis with alternative investment opportunities. Zach, you've got a bit more of a credit-focus. What are you looking for in your opportunities?  ZK: We want to understand where the realizations are coming from. So if I'm looking at a track record, I want to understand if these realizations are coming through settlements or late-stage trial events. From my perspective as an investor, I'd be more attracted to those late-stage settlements, even if the returns were a little bit lower than a track record that had several large trial wins. And I say that because when you're looking at the types of cases that you'll be investing in, you want to invest in cases that will resolve before trial and get away from that binary risk. You want cases that have good merit, make economic sense, and have alignment between claimant and law firm, and ultimately are settleable by defendants. That type of track record is much more replicable than if you have a few outsized trial wins. What are things that managers generally do particularly well in this asset class, and particularly poorly?  CB: I don't want to paint with a broad brush here. With managers it can be idiosyncratic, but there can be structuring mistakes - not getting paid for extension risks, not putting in IRR provisions. Portfolio construction mistakes like not deploying enough and being undercommitted, which is a killer. Conversely, on the good side, we've seen a ton of activity around insurance, which seems to be a bigger part of the landscape. We also welcome risk management optionality with secondaries. Some folks are clearly skating to where the puck is going and doing more innovative things, so it really depends who you're dealing with. But on the fundamental underwriting, you rarely see a consistent train wreck - it's more on the other stuff where people get tripped up. How do you approach valuation of litigation finance portfolios? What I’m more specifically interested in is (i) do you rely on manager portfolio valuations, (ii) do you apply rules of thumb to determine valuations, (iii) do you focus your diligence efforts on a few meaningful cases or review & value the entire portfolio, and (iv) do you use third parties to assist in valuations?  CB: If you're in a fund, you're relying on the manager's marks. What we do is not that - we own the assets directly or make co-investments. We see a lot of people approach this differently. Sometimes we have the same underlying exposure as partners and they're marking it differently. Not to say that one party is rational and the other is not, it's just hard to do. So this is one we struggle with. I don't love mark-to-motion. I know there's a tug toward trying to fair value things more, but as we've experienced in the venture space, you can put a lot of valuations in DPI, but I like to keep it at cost unless there is a material event. Check out the full 1-hour discussion here.
Commercial People Moves

Claimbnb Opens Madrid Office Amid 3rd Fundraising Round

Whilst the American, British and Australian litigation finance markets are largely dominated by long-established funders, individual jurisdictions within Europe offer opportunities for domestic funders to gain a foothold in these nascent markets. This is being demonstrated once again, as a new funder in Spain has opened an office and raised additional capital. An article in Iberian Lawyer covers the latest move from Spanish litigation funder, Claimbnb, which has opened an office in Madrid to support its expansion in the country’s growing litigation finance market. Claimbnb currently operates three investment vehicles and is in the middle of its third fundraising round, aiming to attract another €50 million in capital for new case investments. The funder stated that it had already achieved many successes for its clients and its investors, “having invested, to date, in more than 30 cases or situations, most of them in Spain for a nominal value of more than €150 million.” Fernando de Castro de Miguel, a member of Claimbnb’s investment committee, stated: “In an uncertain economic environment, Claimbnb offers the possibility of monetizing litigation or legal assets, providing extraordinary income, immediate liquidity and the ability to reinvest in the firm’s core business. We differentiate ourselves by investing in unique litigation that requires ad-hoc risk analysis, but we do not forgo other more scalable themes such as antitrust damages.”
Consumer Special Features

Does Consumer Legal Funding Put Consumers in Debt?

The following article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). There has been a lot of discussion if Consumer legal funding is a loan and thereby creates debt for a consumer Consumer legal funding, sometimes called litigation funding or lawsuit funding, provides cash upfront to plaintiffs, to be used for household needs, which are involved in legal proceedings in exchange for a portion of the eventual settlement or judgment. It doesn't create debt like a loan from a bank or credit card, these distinctions contribute to its classification as a unique financial product rather than a loan or debt.
  • Non-recourse nature: Unlike loans, where the consumer is personally liable for repayment regardless of the outcome, consumer legal funding is non-recourse. This means that if the plaintiff loses their case, they are not obligated to repay the funding. The repayment is contingent upon the success of the lawsuit.
  • No monthly payments: In a loan, borrowers usually make monthly payments to repay the principal amount plus interest. With consumer legal funding, there are usually no monthly payments required. Instead, repayment only occurs if and when the case is settled or won, and the repayment is often structured as a lump sum.
  • Risk sharing: Consumer legal funding providers assume a significant amount of risk by providing funds to plaintiffs who may not ultimately win their case. Unlike lenders who typically assess creditworthiness and require collateral, consumer legal funding companies evaluate the strength of the case and base their decision on the likelihood of success and not the creditworthiness of the consumer.
  • Not regulated as loans: Consumer legal funding is often subject to different regulations than loans. While loans are typically governed by banking and lending laws, consumer legal funding has its own set of regulations that ensures consumers are protected and the product is offered in a responsible manner.
Some of the other key differences between consumer legal funding and debt from a loan is in how repayment works. With a loan, the consumer borrows money and agrees to repay it with interest, regardless of the outcome of the situation, creating debt. However, with consumer legal funding, repayment is contingent upon the success of the case. If the consumer loses their case, they will not have to repay the funding. But if they win, they will have to pay back the amount funded, with fees that are known upfront. So, therefore consumer legal funding doesn't create debt. Unlike Consumer legal funding, some loans can put consumers in a cycle of debt. The term cycle of debt refers to a pattern where individuals or households become trapped in a recurring pattern of borrowing money to meet financial obligations, only to find themselves in even greater debt over time. This cycle often involves:
  • Initial Borrowing: The cycle typically begins with an initial borrowing of money, such as taking out a loan, using a credit card, or obtaining other forms of credit to cover expenses or emergencies.
  • Accumulation of Interest and Fees: As time passes, the borrower may struggle to make timely payments on their debts, leading to the accumulation of interest charges, late fees, and other penalties.
  • Financial Strain: The increasing debt burden can put a strain on the borrower's finances, making it difficult to cover basic living expenses and other financial obligations.
  • Additional Borrowing: To address their financial difficulties, borrowers may resort to additional borrowing or using high-cost forms of credit, such as payday loans or cash advances, to make ends meet.
  • Repayment Challenges: The cycle continues as the borrower struggles to keep up with mounting debt payments, leading to further financial stress and the need for more borrowing.
  • Escalating Debt: Without significant changes in financial habits or circumstances, the debt continues to escalate, with the borrower owing more money than they can realistically repay.
Breaking the cycle of debt often requires proactive steps such as budgeting, reducing expenses, increasing income, seeking financial counseling, and finding ways to pay down debt strategically. It may also involve negotiating with creditors, consolidating debts, or exploring debt relief options such as debt settlement or bankruptcy. Consumers who use Consumer legal funding are never placed in a cycle of debt. Consumer legal funding has many other positives to a consumer besides not placing them in debt.
  • Immediate Financial Assistance: Consumer legal funding provides plaintiffs with immediate cash to cover living expenses, medical bills, legal fees, and other costs associated with their lawsuit. This can be particularly helpful for individuals facing financial hardship due to their inability to work or other circumstances related to their legal case.
  • Non-Recourse: Consumer legal funding is non-recourse, meaning that if the plaintiff loses their case, they are not obligated to repay the funding. This reduces the financial risk for the plaintiff, as they only repay the funding if they win their case.
  • Leveling the Playing Field: Consumer legal funding can help level the playing field in legal disputes by providing plaintiffs with the financial resources to pursue their case effectively. This is particularly beneficial for individuals who are up against well-funded defendants or corporations.
  • No Upfront Costs: Unlike loans, consumer legal funding does not require upfront payments or monthly repayments. Instead, repayment is structured with a known outcome and amount.
Overall, consumer legal funding can be a valuable resource for plaintiffs in need of financial assistance during legal proceedings without putting them in debt. Eric Schuller President Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)
Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

LITFINCON Expands to Los Angeles in September 2024 and Announces Distinguished Judicial Panel

As the premier litigation finance conference renowned for its thought leadership and networking opportunities, LITFINCON is proud to announce its expansion to Los Angeles in September 2024. LITFINCON Los Angeles promises to uphold its tradition of excellence, offering attendees exclusive networking events, informative and engaging panel discussions, and unique insights into the evolving landscape of litigation finance through both a legal and financial lens. Attendees include a diverse array of professionals, including litigators, general counsel, law firm partners, funders, investors, insurance professionals, and esteemed members of the judiciary. Among the hallmarks of LITFINCON is the Judicial Panel, featuring distinguished jurists who will offer invaluable perspectives on the intersection of law and finance. LITFINCON Los Angeles is honored to announce these participating jurists with additional jurists to be announced:
  • The Honorable Patrick Bumatay of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • The Honorable Charles Eskridge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • The Honorable Taylor McNeel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
The Judicial Panel will be moderated by Lauren J. Harrison, Vice President & Investment Counselor of Law Finance Group. "We want to thank our distinguished panel of jurists for taking time from their busy day jobs to share their views about our industry's work. I was privileged to begin my legal career by clerking for two federal judges, so our firm's respect for the public service and dedication of members of the judiciary is deep and sincere," says Mani Walia, Managing Partner at Siltstone Capital. LITFINCON Los Angeles's venue is The Maybourne Beverly Hills, a symbol of West Coast elegance, perfectly located adjacent to Rodeo Drive. Guests can indulge in top-tier dining and services, staying at Tatler's 2023 selection for "Best City Hotel." Registration for LITFINCON Los Angeles 2024 is now open, with early bird discounts available for a limited time. Don't miss this opportunity to be part of the premier event shaping the future of litigation finance. If you are interested in sponsorship opportunities, please reach out to Ally Herebic at allyson.herebic@siltstone.com. Siltstone Capital, the organizer of LITFINCON, is a top-tier niche alternative capital provider that provides funding solutions for litigants, law firms, and legal teams, aiming to support plaintiffs with the financial resources to assert and protect their rights. Learn more about Siltstone Capital at www.siltstone capital.com. For further details about LITFINCON Los Angeles, please visit our website at www.litfincon.com.
Commercial People Moves

ALFA Welcomes Aequitas Litigation Funding as Newest Member

In an announcement posted on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA) welcomed Aequitas Litigation Funding as its newest member.  The Sydney-based litigation funder is backed by Axiis Capital Pty Ltd, with the company being ‘founded on the principle of fairness to all in our legal system and is dedicated to providing access to justice.’ According to Aequitas’ website, the funder is open to providing ‘financing for legal costs, solicitor’s fees, and working capital’, with a focus on class actions.
Commercial Deals

Italian Funder LexCapital Looks to Engage with Swiss Legal Market

For those funders who are newer entrants to the litigation finance market, their focus may initially be limited to domestic proceedings within their native jurisdiction. However, as these funders look to grow, it is often a natural next step to look outside their own borders, and engage with cases in other jurisdictions that have a connection to their home country. An article in Corriere Del Ticino highlights the activities of Italian litigation funder LexCapital, speaking with the company’s COO, Giuseppe Farchione, about the funder’s work in Italy and its recent expansion to engage with legal matters taking place in Switzerland.  Farchione discussed the company’s proprietary algorithm, ‘LexCapital Litigation Assessment’, which allows the funder to analyse the potential outcome and proceeds from a case, utilising a database which includes over 1.2 million civil matters in the Italian courts. The database contains a variety of statistical information that the algorithm can draw upon, including the duration of these cases, the subject and forum of the proceedings, and the division of these cases based on whether they were accepted or rejected. Farchione explained that the company hopes to begin incorporating data from international arbitration proceedings and cases in other jurisdictions. Farchione went on to discuss LexCapital’s nascent activities in the Swiss legal market, having engaged in its first case in Ticino, an Italian-speaking region of southern Switzerland, working with local lawyer Marco Compagnino. Farchione said that LexCapital would be open to working with other law firms in Switzerland, noting that the costs involved in Swiss cases are high but can lead to substantial returns for those proceedings that reach successful conclusions. He went on to say that LexCapital’s primary interest in Swiss litigation funding is in those cases which have a connection to Italy, such as those matters that involve an Italian company operating in Switzerland or a Swiss company that is involved in a dispute with an Italian counterpart.
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

LitFin Funded Case to Recover Khatib Family’s Stolen Art Leads to Raids in Paris and Frankfurt

Many examples of funded litigation involve high profile companies or sovereign states, with alleged scandals and injustices that can quickly dominate headlines. However, an ongoing European legal action may stand out above the rest, with a story so eventful that it sounds as if it could have been lifted from a Hollywood script, as a litigation funder is supporting a family’s efforts to recover stolen paintings worth hundreds of millions of euros. A press release from the Khatib family provided an update on its legal battle to recover valuable paintings that were stolen from their collection, as French bailiffs and police conducted a raid on a storage facility in Paris. The raid was authorised by court orders issued in Paris, which follows the same pattern as raids conducted by German authorities following court orders issued in Frankfurt. The Paris raid reportedly recovered a ‘large number of paintings belonging to a collection of works of Russian Avantgarde stolen from the Khatib family.’ These raids are the result of a legal case that began following the December 2019 theft of around 1,800 paintings, valued in the hundreds of millions of euros, from Wiesbaden in Germany. Since the theft, the Khatib family have been pursuing legal action to recover the stolen artwork, with the litigation funded by Prague-based funder, LitFin, and led by Dentons’ offices in Frankfurt and Paris. The press release included a statement from the spokesperson for the Khatib family, who said: "With the help of Dentons and LitFin, we will follow the perpetrators around the world. We will continue to recover our property and encourage anyone who considers buying works from the Russian Avantgarde to diligently check its provenance and make sure it is not a stolen piece belonging to our family".
Case Developments Commercial

High Court Denies ‘Dieselgate’ Defendants’ Request to Order Disclosure of Claimants’ Funding Agreement

As the UK litigation finance industry continues to stay in the public spotlight, discussions continue around what any future regulation might entail and whether it would increase requirements around the transparency or disclosure of funding agreements. For now, a recent judgement from the High Court has ruled in favour of the claimants in a high-profile group claim, by denying a request for the disclosure of any funding agreements. An article in The Law Society Gazette highlights a ruling in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Kings Bench Division, that dealt with a request for the disclosure of any funding agreements in the ‘Dieselgate’ group claim. The judgement dealt with two sets of applications, with the second being a funding disclosure application from the defendants that sought to compel the claimants and their lawyers, Pogust Goodhead, to provide ‘information as to their funding position’.  The request was sought by the defendants as they stated that they ‘are considering making an application under CPR 25.14(2)(b) for security for costs against the Funders.’ In their judgement, Mrs Justice Cockerill and Mr Justice Constable, declined ‘to order disclosure of Pogust Goodhead’s funding agreement, but instead consider that it will be appropriate to revisit the issue relatively shortly, to the extent it is pursued.’ They wrote that this could be done after legal budgets were fixed and once the claimants have had the opportunity to secure ATE insurance, meaning that ‘the question of security against Gramercy would be rendered redundant.’ The full judgement can be read here.
Commercial

Lawdragon Publishes 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance for 2024

Lawdragon has released its 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance list for 2024, with the fifth edition of its annual guide ‘dedicated to the leaders of this fascinating – and necessary – avenue of the legal profession.’ The list includes 164 senior executives from all over the glove, representing the entire spectrum of those companies involved in litigation finance, including funders, law firms, insurers, investors, and advisors. Of those companies with leaders included on the list, Burford Capital saw the highest number of executives recognised with 17, with Omni Bridgeway close behind at 12 individuals, and Harbour which had eight of its team listed.  Looking at the breakdown by jurisdiction across the 165 litigation finance leaders recognised, the US was the most represented country with 73 individuals listed. The UK came in a close second with 55 leaders recognised, and Australia came behind it with 17 executives profiled. As part of it’s 2024 litigation finance leaders list, Lawdragon has also identified those individuals who are listed in its Hall of Fame, which recognises ‘members and other outstanding lawyers who have made a remarkable contribution to the profession.’ Within litigation finance, three individuals are included in the Hall of Fame:
  • Louis Young, co-founder & CEO, Augusta Ventures
  • Stuart Grant, co-founder & managing director, Bench Walk Advisors
  • Andy Lundberg, managing director, Burford Capital
The full list of individuals recognised in 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance list can be found here.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Russian Billionaires Evading Sanctions by Funding Cases in UK & US

One of the latest critiques of the litigation finance industry is that it represents a potential threat to US national security, due to the possibility of foreign governments and entities by funding lawsuits that target American companies and strategic national interests. Whilst there has been scant evidence of this being a tangible issue, a new investigation has revealed that Russian billionaires have been avoiding international sanctions by financing lawsuits in the West. The detailed investigation by Bloomberg Law focuses on the activities of the investment company A1, its parent corporation Alfa Group, and A1’s directors. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Alfa Group has been sanctioned by both the United States and United Kingdom, as were A1’s billionaire directors Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, German Khan, and Alexey Kuzmichev. The US also individually sanctioned A1 in September 2023. Bloomberg’s investigation reveals that A1 has financed and been directly involved in the proceedings of bankruptcy lawsuits in both New York and London, having spent approximately $20 million across these cases. The investigation highlights that A1’s sanctioned directors attempted to avoid the reach of their individual sanctions by selling the company to another of its directors, Alexander Fain, for the miniscule sum of $900. In a witness statement for one of the bankruptcy cases, Fain explained that his directors had sold the company because “it became obvious that A1 LLC would no longer be able to operate normally and that there was a risk of default on its obligations to fund the litigation.” Commenting on the investigation, J. Scott Maberry, partner at Sheppard Mullin, described A1’s funding activities as “a big development in that sense because it kind of puts the US judicial system on par with the New York Stock Exchange and the US dollar as things that we need to start thinking carefully about how to deny access to.” Matt Webb, senior vice president at the Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, argued that “A1’s actions are an example of the problems that arise when foreign entities can finance litigation.” The full details of A1’s involvement in these cases, as well as the roles played by sanctioned individuals can be read in Bloomberg Law’s article.
Commercial Deals

Westfleet Publishes 2023 Litigation Finance Market Report

Westfleet Advisors has published its fifth annual Litigation Finance Market Report, providing a data-driven overview of the commercial funding industry in the United States from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023.  Westfleet summarises its findings as ‘indicative of an industry in a state of flux, with some notable players exiting the industry, numerous professionals making lateral moves, and capital commitments to new deals contracting by nearly 14%.’ With regard to the decreasing volume of new capital commitments, Westfleet attributes this trend to the difficult global economic conditions that are affecting all industries, rather than a decline in demand for litigation funding. Despite this contraction on new capital, Westfleet still found that ‘many funders thrived both in terms of new capital raised, capital committed to new deals, growth in their headcount, and profitability.’ Westfleet’s report suggests that the data from 2023 indicates that the market is still favourable for those established funders ‘with strong track records and a proven ability to consistently attract new capital.’ Key highlights from the 2023 report include:
  • $15.2B in assets under management for 2023, representing a small increase from $15.1B in 2022
  • $2.7B in new commitments to deals in 2023, down from £3.2B in 2022
  • The average deal size declined from $8.6M in 2022 to $7.8M in 2023
  • This was driven by a reduction in the average size of portfolio deals from $10.5M in 2022 to $9.9M in 2023
  • In contrast the average size of single-matter transactions increased from $4.3M in 2022 to $4.8M in 2023
  • The share of new capital dedicated to claim monetization reached 21% in 2023, continuing the upward trend from 14% in 2022 and 8% in 2021
To read the full report from Westfleet Advisors, click here.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Nick Rowles-Davies Shares Thoughts on a Post-PACCAR World

A new piece of analysis by Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of Lexolent, sheds light on the current state of the litigation funding market post-PACCAR.
As is customary of Rowles-Davies, his analysis pulls no punches. Writing on LinkedIn, he opines that industry stakeholders have varying perspectives on the Litigation Funding Agreements Bill.  Despite the Supreme Court's judgement and the industry's claims of adaptability and compliance, not all funders operate transparently, according to Rowles-Davies. The speed of the proposed new legislation and the lobbying efforts to expedite its implementation have also raised concerns.
The litigation funding industry is diverse, with different funders operating in different ways. There is a growing call for regulation, particularly as 90% of the London Solicitors Litigation Association believe it's time for the industry to be regulated. The PACCAR decision has created uncertainty and led to attempts to reopen concluded deals. As a result, a thorough review by the Civil Justice Council is needed.
The proposed 'Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill' aims to restore the pre-PACCAR regime, allowing individuals and small businesses to fund large claims against corporations. While many eyebrows have certainly been raised, the litigation funding industry isn't going anywhere any time soon, even if future regulation is on the horizon.
Case Developments Commercial

Subpostmaster’s Lawyer Calls on SRA to Examine Legal Costs in Post Office Litigation

The Post Office scandal, and its rise to the forefront of public attention in the UK, has been repeatedly cited as a prime example of the crucial role that litigation finance plays in securing access to justice for victims. However, arguments over the legal costs and funder’s returns in this case continue to be aired, as a lawyer for one of the subpostmasters is calling on regulators to get involved. Reporting by The Telegraph, and shared by Yahoo Finance, reveals that one of the subpostmasters in the Post Office Horizon litigation is calling for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to investigate the legal fees paid out from the £58 million settlement fund. The subpostmaster’s lawyer, Jim Diamond, has written to the SRA after he has repeatedly asked for additional information from Freeths, the firm which represented the victims in the case, about how the settlement was divided between the law firm, litigation funder and the claimants. Mr Diamond explained in his letter that he has twice asked Freeths to provide the information along with supporting documents, but the law firm has rebuffed his outreach and said that as the litigation is now closed, they are not open to engaging on the subject. Diamond is asking the SRA to clarify whether the law firm is obligated to comply with his request and provide the documents to their former client, the postmaster. Mr Diamond also used the letter to criticise the recent article written by Neil Purslow, founder and chief investment officer of Therium Capital Management. In the guest article published in The Times, Purslow had refuted suggestions that Therium’s remuneration accounted for 80% of the settlement fund. In his letter to the SRA, Diamond argued that Therium’s founder should not have discussed the breakdown of costs in public, as these details are ‘private and confidential.’ At the recent Brown Rudnick European Litigation Funding Conference, Mr Purslow once again denied the claims about an ‘80% payout’ to Therium and offered a detailed explanation of the funder’s involvement in the case.
Case Developments Commercial

Illinois Court Grants Burford and Sysco’s Request to Substitute Plaintiff in Poultry Antitrust Litigation

As LFJ reported last month, the ongoing saga of Burford Capital and Sysco’s antitrust lawsuits continued, as both parties appealed a Minnesota judge’s denial of a joint request for the substitution of plaintiff in the antitrust case. As we wait to see the outcome of that appeal, Burford and its subsidiary, Carina Ventures, have secured a favourable ruling in another antitrust case in the United States District Court for The Northern District of Illinois. Reporting by Reuters provides the latest update on the Sysco antitrust cases funded by Burford Capital, as U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted Sysco’s request to assign the ‘Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation’ to Burford’s affiliate company, Carina Ventures. The Illinois judge rejected each of the arguments brought by the defendants who objected to the substitution, stating: ‘An invalid assignment might have been a reason to deny the motion. But the Court has rejected those arguments.’ Explaining his decision to grant the substitution of plaintiff in the case, Judge Durkin said that “despite defendants protestations to the contrary, the assignment does not appear to be a very unusual circumstance either.” He further reasoned that “such assignments are a fact of modern litigation”, and therefore he had no reason to “interfere with sophisticated parties’ business decisions." The favourable ruling in this poultry case in Illinois will be welcomed by Burford Capital and Sysco, as their efforts to similarly reassign the pork antitrust claim in Minnesota were denied last month. Whilst the initial denial of their request for substitution of plaintiff in that case was disappointing, Burford will no doubt see Judge Durkin’s ruling as a positive factor in their appeal of the Minnesota court order.
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

Litigation Finance Firm Invests €25 million into Spanish Legal Tech Business

A Manchester firm has signed a groundbreaking €25 million deal to support a pioneering Spanish legal tech company, renowned for its expertise in handling claims related to cartel price fixing.
In a bid to increase access to justice across Europe, IQuote Limited will provide financial backing to Málaga based Cartel.es as it looks to expand across the continent. The Spanish company, which is the trading name of LegalTech Ventures S.L, was founded to tackle the vehicle cartel price-fixing scandal, which implicated 23 vehicle manufacturers from 2006 - 2013.
For two decades, Spain has seen a rise in these cartels involving companies in the same sector covertly fixing prices, sharing territories and customers, and exchanging sensitive commercial data.
The scandal, brought to light by the National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC) in 2015, is thought to impact about 9.7 million consumers in Spain. This latest agreement to supply a funding facility of up to €25 million, is aimed to support Cartel.es in its expansion across Europe.
Craig Cornick, IQuote’s CEO and founder, said the investment is a strategic move to help more people across Spain obtain the justice they deserve. “Cartel.es is doing a very important job for the people affected by these corporate cartels and we couldn’t be prouder to be supporting the firm’s mission. The investment will not only provide financial backing to the company but also make justice a tangible reality for those in Spain and beyond.”
Cartel.es has made significant investments in proprietary technology allowing it to assess and quantify each claimant before court proceedings, facilitating faster resolutions. Co-founder and Chief Investment Officer, Adam Peake, said: “We are very proud of the work that we do.  These types of claims are not easy to approach so we are very excited to be partnering with IQuote, which has such a track record when it comes to complex legal matters.
“We’ve seen tremendous success so far and we’re looking forward to IQuote’s support and expertise in making lasting contributions to the European legal landscape, bringing justice closer to more people.”
Founded in 2016, IQuote Limited, specialises in legal asset and opex capital loans, with a primary focus on legal asset investing. The firm is constantly pushing for inventive solutions and investment opportunities to firms in the legal, technology and customer service sectors.
Mr Cornick added: “It is very important for us to champion businesses that put in great effort to help people access justice, it’s the core of what we do. With this investment and future expansion into Europe we are committed to bridging the gap between individuals and their right to legal resource. We’re hoping to keep growing the company and continue our mission to break down barriers to justice across the globe.”
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Litigation Funding Bill Introduced in House of Lords

Earlier this month, the UK government announced that it would introduce legislation to protect litigation funding by reversing the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR. Whilst it was uncertain at the time of the announcement how quickly the government would move forward with these plans, we have now seen that no time has been wasted to introduce simple legislation to Parliament. Earlier this week, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill 2024 was introduced in the House of Lords, delivering on the government’s promise to roll out new legislation to reverse the effects of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. HL Bill 56, ‘a Bill to amend section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to make provision about the enforceability of litigation funding agreements’, was introduced by Lord Evans of Rainow on 19 March 2024. The text of the bill is succinct and only makes two amendments to subsection (3) of section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act, with the first being to insert the following text after paragraph (a): “an agreement is not a damages-based agreement if or to the 5 extent that it is a litigation funding agreement.” The second amendment, which is to be inserted after subsection (3), provides a straightforward definition of a litigation funding agreement with regards to the roles of the funder and the litigant within such agreements.  The bill states that these amendments ‘are treated as always having had effect.’ The second section of the draft legislation also clarifies that this act applies solely to England and Wales, and that it ‘comes into force on the day on which it is passed.’ The bill was introduced on 19 March and had its first reading in the House of Lords, and according to the UK Parliament website, it now has a second reading scheduled for 15 April 2024. The second reading of the bill allows for a general debate on the details of the bill.
Announcements Consumer

Mass Tort Industry Leader Nicholas D’Aquilla Joins Counsel Financial

In a strategic move to bolster its litigation finance and loan servicing capabilities, Counsel Financial welcomes Nicholas (Nick) D’Aquilla, Esq. as its new Managing Director. With over a decade of experience in the mass tort industry and as a former civil defense litigator for the Louisiana Department of Justice, D’Aquilla brings a wealth of knowledge and a proven track record of success to the Counsel Financial leadership team.

D’Aquilla has distinguished himself as a leading figure in administering complex settlements, contributing to the administration of more than $20 billion in mass tort settlements across many high-profile cases. His expertise in solution design and oversight services has contributed to the resolution of more than 40 mass tort and class action litigations, spanning environmental, pharmaceutical, medical device, and sexual assault matters.

D'Aquilla will focus on enhancing Counsel Financial's mass tort underwriting processes and loan servicing offering, enhancing the development of valuation models based on historical settlement data. He will also leverage his experience as a consultant for multiple legal technology companies to help drive continued refinement of the company's servicing platform.

“Adding Nick to our team marks a significant enhancement of our litigation finance and loan servicing offerings,” said Paul Cody, President & CEO of Counsel Financial. “Coupling our team’s 200+ years of legal, financial and litigation experience with Nick’s knowledge and insight into the mass tort sector provides unparalleled resources that can be leveraged by both our law firm clients and institutional investors utilizing our servicing platform.”

Before joining Counsel Financial, D’Aquilla played a pivotal role in a complex settlement fund advisory team for a national bank, where he developed innovative underwriting methodologies that enabled credit extensions to mass tort plaintiffs’ firms. There, he also analyzed and valued over $1.5 billion in loan collateral derived from mass tort dockets.

About Counsel Financial

Counsel Financial is an industry leader in originating, underwriting and servicing loans and other financing solutions for contingent fee law firms. For over two decades, Counsel Financial has provided more than $2 billion in capital investments across 300+ law firms. These investments have financed the growth of firms in every area of plaintiffs’ litigation, including personal injury, mass torts, class action and labor and employment.

Commercial Special Features

Highlights from Brown Rudnick’s Litigation Funding Conference 2024

Last week, Brown Rudnick hosted its third annual European Litigation Funding Conference, proving once again to be one of the premier gatherings of industry thought leaders and executives. The one-day event featured an agenda full of insightful discussions, as senior representatives from funders, law firms, insurers, and other industry firms, all provided their perspectives on the most pressing issues facing the European funding market. The conference served as a reminder of the growing interest in litigation finance, as the venue was packed with attendees and without an empty seat in sight at the start of proceedings. Before the panel discussions began, the event kicked off with a keynote speech from Camille Vasquez, partner and co-chair of the brand & reputation management group at Brown Rudnick. Vasquez, who gained international recognition for her involvement in the Depp v. Heard trial, offered an alternative perspective on litigation funding, exploring its potential use in defamation cases brought by high-profile individuals or companies. As Vasquez explained, whilst it is commonly assumed that celebrities and other public figures have access to large amounts of liquid capital, this is often not the case. In such situations, Vasquez suggested that litigation funders may be able to play a crucial role in supporting high-profile plaintiffs who are eager to pursue defamation litigation but lack the funds to seek justice. A Post-PACCAR World and the Future of Regulation Unsurprisingly, the hottest topic at the litigation funding conference was the ongoing impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling and the recent announcement by the UK government that it would introduce legislation to reverse the effects of that decision on litigation funding.  Looking at the long-term impact of the Supreme Court’s decision, Susan Dunn from Harbour provided the quote of the morning, when she emphatically stated that the PACCAR ruling would be remembered as “a footnote in history, not a chapter.” Similarly, Nicholas Bacon KC of 4 New Square Chambers, described it as “a blip in the landscape” of the UK funding market, and pointed out that the situation had in some ways had positive effects as it had brought wider public attention to litigation funding. However, speakers across the day recognised that PACCAR had created unnecessary uncertainty for investors considering engaging with the UK market, and had created fresh talking points for the most vocal opponents of third-party funding. NorthWall Capital’s Alexander Garnier reported that the Supreme Court’s judgement had “made people more nervous about investing in the UK and London”, because it had increased the risk of investments or had increased the perception of those risk levels. According to Professor Rachael Mulheron KC, another negative side-effect of the decision has been the “unfortunate conflation between regulation and PACCAR,” which has made productive discussions around the future of industry oversight more challenging. As the event’s participants discussed the effects of PACCAR, these exchanges naturally turned to the government’s announcement of new legislation and a potential review into the litigation funding market. With the review suggesting the possibility of enhanced regulation of third-party funding, Woodsford’s Charlie Morris admitted that this aspect of the government’s announcement was unfortunate, as it had “given an opportunity for the anti-funding lobby” and compared it the “politically motivated campaign” that took place in Australia to crack down on litigation funders. As to what future regulations could (or should) look like, speakers at the conference were divided on certain issues such as a potential cap on the level of returns a funder could take from any award or damages. Morris once again emphasised the need to avoid “broad brush statutory prohibitions”, whilst Dunn firmly argued that a cap on funders’ returns “should not be part of any regulation.” In contrast, Garnier expressed an openness to some form of cap, explaining that he would “welcome clarity” on industry regulations, “even if it involves a regime that includes a cap on damages.” Offering the most succinct perspective on the funding industry’s view of new legislation, Matthew Lo from Exton Advisors argued that there is “nothing to be afraid of about regulation in general, but the devil is in the detail.” On a similar note, Professor Mulheron suggested that the most important thing for any government plans to introduce new regulations is that “funders have to be around the table” for these discussions. The Impact of the Post Office Scandal Closely tied to the UK government’s ongoing attempts to soften the blow of PACCAR, is the role played by the Post Office scandal and the impact it had on bringing the vital role of litigation funding in securing access to justice to the public’s attention. One of the highlights of the day’s discussions was the insight provided by Neil Purslow of Therium, who offered a fascinating account of the funder’s involvement in the sub-postmasters litigation and expressed some frank reflections on the ways it had highlighted the nefarious tactics of defendants. Purslow described the case as a perfect example of a defendant “spending money on lawyers rather than doing the right thing”, and noted that the Post Office had spent £100 million to fight the case rather than actually providing compensation to the victims upfront. Purslow emphasised this fact in combination with a rebuttal of the oft-repeated claim that Therium had taken 80% of the damages awarded to the sub-postmasters, explaining that the actual return for the funder was around 41%. In light of these facts, Purslow described the arguments in favour of a broader cap on funders’ fees as “nonsense”, and instead highlighted the case as yet another instance of defendants taking “a scorched earth approach to litigation.” Purslow concluded his contribution to the day’s discussion by recognising that whilst the PACCAR decision had been “a self-inflicted wound”, the industry and government’s reaction has clearly demonstrated that the UK “is a jurisdiction that is supportive to litigation finance.” Furthermore, Purslow praised his fellow litigation funders for “working together collaboratively and sharing ideas” to protect the UK funding industry, and highlighted the value of institutions like ILFA in providing a powerful voice that could “address the issue and get the government to act.” Economic Pressures, Corporate Cases and Law Firm Funding During the day’s panel discussions, speakers offered their views on the trends, opportunities and challenges that industry participants have seen over the last twelve months. As many industry leaders have spoken about in the last year, whilst litigation funding is broadly seen as an uncorrelated asset class, that does not mean that it has been, as Matthew Lo put it, “immune to the wider economic environment”. The majority of panellists agreed that the rise in interest rates had continued to apply pressure on funders’ pricing, which then increased cost of financing creating challenges for those funders looking to raise capital. However, due to these challenging economic conditions, speakers noted that there has been an increase in demand for funding from law firms and corporations, both of whom are facing similar budget pressures whilst still looking to manage their litigation strategies. As Christiane Deniger of Burford Capital explained, many listed companies are actively seeking funding for a portfolio of cases and are “ready and willing to not spend their own money if they can take ours.” Rocco Pirozzolo from Harbour Underwriting added that these corporate cases were often attractive, because key decision makers at these companies share the funder’s perspective that “they have to be commercial and they have to be reasonable.” When it came to working with corporate GCs and CFOs, there was a broad consensus among the industry leaders present that there was still plenty of work to do around educating these inhouse decision-makers on the nuances of litigation funding. Ayse Yazir from Bench Walk noted that there is often still “concern over the control of the case”, with critics of the litigation finance industry contributing to fears that funders would seize control of the litigation process. Nathaniel Cortez of Moelis acknowledged that whilst these corporate leaders “don’t need to be experts on litigation finance”, it was clear that many GCs and financial directors did not “understand the breadth and depth of the industry”. The discussions focused on law firm funding proved to be some of the most enlightening exchanges of the conference, with funders and lawyers alike sharing their perspectives on some of the unique challenges and opportunities that this avenue of investing entailed. Hugo Lestiboudois from SYZ Capital made a clear delineation between straightforward litigation financing and the process of lending directly to law firms. He explained that law firm funding “is not as commoditised as litigation finance is today”, with investors needing to approach it from a business perspective and often having to “compete on terms, rather than on price.” Reinforcing this viewpoint, Chris Benson from Leigh Day argued that this type of funding crucially involves “getting lawyers to think like economists”, and acknowledged that this can be challenging as “a lot of lawyers have no interest in finance.” Looking at the practical steps involved in law firm funding, both in terms of the due diligence undertaken pre-funding and the ongoing monitoring and reporting that must take place post-funding, the speakers once again provided useful insights. Joshua Katz from Gramercy said that from his firm’s perspective, part of the journey was understanding the law firm’s wider strategic objectives, saying that Gramercy recognised that for a firm there are “some cases you should pursue even if they’re not economical, for the greater good.” Similarly when it came to the ongoing relationship between the funder and law firms, it was not only crucial for practical issues like reporting systems to be in alignment, Lestiboudois highlighted the need for a “cultural fit” between firms. A High Benchmark for Industry Conferences By the end of the day, the event’s attendees had been treated to a plethora of engaging discussions across seven separate panels, bolstered by plenty of opportunities for networking and connections between sessions. The full scope and detail of every speaker’s insights could not be encompassed in this single overview of the day’s proceedings, but by the time the agenda concluded with informal refreshments, the conference had succeeded in providing an impressively diverse array of perspectives on litigation funding in Europe. Brown Rudnick’s third European Litigation Funding Conference proved to be an enlightening experience for those in attendance, with the proceedings expertly guided by the conference chair Elena Rey and fellow moderators from Brown Rudnick, who skilfully guided the event’s packed schedule. LFJ’s team were delighted to meet with fellow attendees who expressed their enjoyment of the event, and we are already looking forward to covering next year’s iteration of Brown Rudnick’s conference.
Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

Legal Finance Firm Set to Reboot Industry with Multi-Million Pound Investment in AI-Tech.

A leading litigation finance firm is investing circa £2m into AI technology as the company looks to continue its meteoric global growth.  Nera Capital, which has offices in Dublin, Manchester and a newly established presence in The Netherlands, plans to significantly enhance its process optimisation and strengthen data analytics.  The investment is expected to significantly benefit the various law firms across Europe, UK and the US that are currently partnered with the company as it seeks to expedite the legal process and ultimately create greater access to justice.  Director Aisling Byrne highlighted the impact of technology on the company’s future plans: "Our investment in AI shows our commitment towards efficiency and innovation.  "We believe this increase in investment will enhance our entire operations, revolutionising further the way we approach various aspects of our business. By leveraging advanced AI technologies, we aim to further streamline processes, boost efficiency, and drive innovation across the board. The decision is a huge step forward, and I am proud of our continued commitment to staying at the forefront of advancement in legal technology.” Since the company’s inception in 2011, Nera Capital has grown to become a major global player in the world of litigation finance, with operations across several European locations. The company is a specialised funding provider catering to law firms by extending support across diverse claim portfolios such as financial mis-selling, data breach, Cartel damages, personal injury and Antitrust. 

It previously announced the creation of 10 new jobs in key areas including legal, auditing, finance and origination, after opening a new office in Weert, Netherlands. Aisling added: “I take immense pride in witnessing the remarkable growth of Nera Capital as it expands worldwide.

“In the face of a rapidly evolving world, our industry has often been considered slow to adapt in relative terms. We are determined to break free from that inertia and lead the charge towards meaningful change. By embracing cutting-edge AI technology, we have entered a transformative chapter for our firm. The fusion of innovation and data-driven insights empowers us to navigate legal landscapes with even greater efficiency, ensuring our partnered law firms receive the swift and insightful solutions they deserve which can hopefully speed up the justice process for those that need it.” 

Nera Capital are expected to look at further expansion into new locations in the near future. 

About Nera Capital

  • Established in 2011, Nera Capital is a specialist funding provider to law firms.
  • Provides Law Firm Lend funding across diverse claim portfolios in both the Consumer and Commercial sector.
  • Headquartered in Dublin, the firm also has offices in Manchester and The Netherlands.
  • www.neracapital.com
Announcements Commercial People Moves

Zachary Segal Joins LCM as an Investment Manager

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) has announced that Zachary Segal has joined the team as an Investment Manager. In a post on LinkedIn, LCM announced the new hire to their over 3,600 followers. Segal has more than 20 years of experience in the legal profession, specializing in all forms of dispute resolution, and in particular international arbitration, including investor-state disputes, and commercial litigation. LCM hopes that with his impressive background, he will play a key role in driving LCM’s growth and success. The team at LCM wrote: "We are thrilled to have Zach onboard and look forward to the valuable contribution he will make to our team."
Announcements Commercial People Moves

DELTA CAPITAL PARTNERS WELCOMES ACCOMPLISHED PRIVATE EQUITY FUND PROFESSIONAL AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Delta Capital Partners Management, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, is pleased to announce that Jonathan Patrick has joined the firm as its Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer.  Patrick will be based in the firm’s Chicago headquarters. Patrick will oversee Delta’s finance, accounting, compliance, human resources, and administrative functions; and will work closely with senior management on all capital market activities, tax and valuation matters. Prior to joining Delta, Patrick served for over 10 years as the Controller of EnCap Investments, a leading provider of private equity growth capital (over $20 billion of AUM) to independent energy companies, focusing on treasury, fund operations and management company financial reporting.  Additionally, Patrick spent over five years in public accounting, including time at Deloitte in their Audit and Enterprise Risk Services practice, and has experience in the Treasury and SEC Financial Reporting functions for Ares Management in Los Angeles. Christopher DeLise, Delta’s Founder, CEO, and Co-CIO stated that “Delta is incredibly pleased to have someone of Jonathan’s caliber and expertise join the firm as we continue to scale our business to increase market share and better serve our investors and customers across the globe.  Jonathan’s experience and responsibilities at EnCap will enable him to bring best practices in the areas of private equity, capital markets, and finance to Delta in anticipation of our significant planned growth in 2024 and beyond.” “I am excited to join and look forward to applying my experience and skillset to Delta Capital Partners.  Collaborating with the established team here is such a great opportunity and I am eager to be part of this growth.” said Patrick. About Delta Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based, global private equity firm specializing exclusively in litigation and legal finance, judgment and award enforcement, and asset recovery.  Delta creates bespoke financing solutions for professional service firms, businesses, governments, financial institutions, investment firms, and individual claimants to enable them to investigate claims, pursue litigation or arbitration, recover assets, enforce judgments or awards, and more effectively manage their risks, cash flow, and capital expenditures.
Announcements Commercial People Moves

DELTA CAPITAL PARTNERS WELCOMES ESTEEMED PRIVATE EQUITY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL TO ITS BOARD OF ADVISORS

Delta Capital Partners Management, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, is pleased to announce that effective March 1, 2024, Anthony Donofrio has joined its Board of Advisors. Prior to joining Delta, Donofrio spent 16 years as the Managing Director, Head of Legal Transactions, and Chief Operating Officer of Co-Investments at Hamilton Lane Advisors, one of the world's leading private markets investment management firms with over $900 billion of assets under management and supervision.  In his capacity as Head of Legal Transactions, Mr. Donofrio led a team of attorneys in the negotiation and execution of thousands of private equity primary, secondary, and co-investment transactions and private market credit investments.  As the Chief Operating Officer of Co-Investments, Mr. Donofrio oversaw all operational aspects of Hamilton Lane’s $5 billion co-investment strategy, with both the team and assets under management of the program more than doubling in size during his tenure. Christopher DeLise, Delta’s Founder, CEO, and Co-CIO stated that “Delta is honored to have such a respected and accomplished private equity and asset management professional join its Board of Advisors.  One of the things that sets Delta apart from other litigation funders is the strength, depth, and accomplishments of its Board.  Anthony is a welcomed addition to such an esteemed group and we very much look forward to benefitting from his wisdom, experiences, and talents for many years to come.” “It is an incredible privilege to join Delta’s Board of Advisors.  I am energized to work alongside Chris and the rest of Delta’s best-in-class team, and I look forward to contributing my private equity and legal experience as Delta continues to execute its global growth strategy,” said Donofrio. About Delta Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based, global private equity firm specializing exclusively in litigation and legal finance, judgment and award enforcement, and asset recovery.  Delta creates bespoke financing solutions for professional service firms, businesses, governments, financial institutions, investment firms, and individual claimants to enable them to investigate claims, pursue litigation or arbitration, recover assets, enforce judgments or awards, and more effectively manage their risks, cash flow, and capital expenditures.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Analyzing the Potential Impact of Florida’s Litigation Funding Bill

Florida is one of the latest US states to see the introduction of draft legislation focused on the regulation of litigation finance. Whilst the bill is currently stalled within the Florida legislature, it is important to consider what impact such a piece of legislation would have, if it is eventually signed into law in its current form. An insights piece from John J. Hanley, partner at Rimon Law, examines the current draft legislation making its way through the Florida legislature, which aims to place new guidelines and restrictions on the use of third-party litigation funding in the state. Hanley begins his analysis by noting that this bill has been the subject of intense lobbying, with 67 lobbyists from interest groups and industry associations contributing to the debate over the legislation. Looking at the core features of the Litigation Investment Safeguards and Transparency Act (LISTA), Hanley points out that the idea the bill is designed to protect consumers is misguided, as the focus of the legislation is directed towards commercial litigation finance arrangements.  Hanley also explains that whilst the bill prohibits various ways funders could control the litigation process, these are largely superfluous measures, given that every funding agreement that Rimon has reviewed already contains these provisions. Similarly, the legislation’s prohibition on funders paying commissions or referral fees is not expected to have a significant impact on the industry, because these commissions ‘are paid by the party receiving funding and not the funder.’ On the bill’s requirement that funders should not receive a larger portion of any damages or award than the plaintiffs themselves, Hanley states that ‘this is a good idea’ and highlights that many ‘reputable funders are already striving to achieve this.’ In contrast, Hanley says that the legislation’s ban on the assignment or securitization of funding agreements ‘is probably the worst feature of LISTA.’ He argues that if such a prohibition were enacted, it would ‘kill liquidity and make it difficult for funders to allocate capital which in turn will drive up pricing and further hurt small business in Florida seeking to fight deep pocketed defendants.’