Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3276 Articles
Commercial People Moves

Burford Capital Hires Judgement Enforcement and Foreign Asset Recovery Expert

When talking about the benefits of third-party funding, litigation funders are often keen to talk about the expertise they can bring in the areas of judgement enforcement and collection. One funder is demonstrating its own commitment to this field, as it has hired a leading judgement enforcement expert to bolster its own team. An article in The American Lawyer highlights Burford Capital’s recruitment of Carrie Tendler, a former partner at Kobre & Kim, to strengthen its judgement enforcement team through her expertise in foreign asset recovery. Tendler brings 16 years of experience at Kobre & Kim to her new role at the litigation funder, having led a practice focused on international judgment enforcement and cross-border asset forfeiture and recovery.  Discussing her new role at Burford, Tendler explained she would focus on helping Burford “in those types of situations where they are the stakeholder in international judgment claims to better manage, strategize and fulfill the role of an in-house litigator.” Tendler also used the interview to offer praise for the value that third-party funding has brought to the legal system, stating: “Lawyers are able to take cases that we wouldn’t have been able to take without the benefit of financing, and claims get adjudicated that should be adjudicated, and that’s all enabled by litigation finance.” It is no coincidence that this recent hire aligns with Burford’s efforts to enforce the $16 billion judgement in the Argentina YPF case, as the funder is in the middle of pursuing a variety of routes to collect the award. Referencing the YPF example, Tendler explained that Burford has many such cases “where Burford is a stakeholder where they need to enforce judgments and having someone full time working on the enforcement of those judgments is my new role.” Burford’s CEO, Christopher Bogart highlighted Tendler as “a leader in global enforcement and cross-border asset recovery”, and stated that the firm is excited to bring “her skillset to our already exceptional asset recovery team, with a particular focus on the YPF matter.”
Announcements Commercial People Moves

Keller Postman UK merges with Lanier, Longstaff, Hedar & Roberts to form specialist collective redress law firm KP Law Limited

Today Keller Postman UK Limited and Lanier, Longstaff, Hedar & Roberts LLP announce their merger to form a new specialist collective redress law firm called KP Law Limited. The merged firm will specialize in bringing large scale consumer claims in the areas of product liability, workers’ rights, data breach and privacy, investment fraud and financial products mis- selling, and competition law. The merged firm will also pursue in the UK and Europe cases being brought by The Lanier Law Firm in the US, which well-known US trial lawyer Mark Lanier heads up. Andrew Nugent Smith, formerly Managing Partner of Keller Postman UK, will be Managing Partner of the new firm, with Tom Longstaff and Duncan Hedar becoming Partners and taking on the roles of Head of Product Liability and Head of Competition, respectively. Keller Postman UK has previously resolved diesel emissions claims against Volkswagen, workers’ rights claims against Uber, and data breach claims against British Airways, Ticketmaster, and Equifax. Ongoing cases for the firm include further diesel emissions claims against Mercedes and Vauxhall, equal pay cases against the major UK supermarkets, and a number of other large group actions. The new KP Law will also continue to pursue claims against talcum powder manufacturers previously brought by Lanier, Longstaff, Hedar & Roberts, with many other large group actions in the pipeline. Mark Lanier commented: “This merger represents an extremely important and significant collaboration for the Lanier Law Firm as we continue to be strategic in developing relationships with firms internationally. I’m thrilled and excited at what a positive development this is for our clients. It’s equally important to me that we are continuing our partnership with Tom Longstaff and Duncan Hedar who are, without a doubt, two of the finest lawyers in the UK.” Andrew Nugent Smith commented: “This merger adds new product liability and competition law expertise to our existing workers’ rights, data breach and privacy, financial products and investment fraud and mis-selling practices. In Tom Longstaff and Duncan Hedar, we gain two stellar collective redress lawyers with the ability to develop and progress collective redress cases, and we are incredibly excited by the opportunity to collaborate with The Lanier Law Firm in the US.” Tom Longstaff commented: “We are delighted to join forces with Keller Postman UK which will allow us to benefit from their established position in the collective redress ecosystem and to increase the pace and scale at which we can bring a large number of opportunities we have developed in the short time that Lanier, Longstaff, Hedar & Roberts has been operating.”
Case Developments Commercial

South American Countries File Briefs in Support of Argentina’s Appeal of $16 Billion Judgment 

Whilst most of the conversation about the $16 billion judgement in the YPF Argentina case has focused on attempts by Burford Capital to collect on the award, this does not mean that the Argentine government has simply given up on continuing its fight against the judgment. In what is perhaps the most significant geopolitical development in the case yet, Argentina’s regional neighbours have joined its legal fight to appeal the US court’s decision. An article in The Financial Times highlights the growing level of global attention focused on the $16 billion judgment faced by Argentina, as its neighbouring countries have lent their support by filing briefs in support of Argentina’s appeal to the US Court of Appeals. In a bold sign of regional solidarity, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Ecuador have all signed on to briefs in support of Argentina’s appeal, arguing that upholding the judgment would amount to a violation of national sovereignty. The brief filed by lawyers for Brazil and Uruguay stated that they were concerned the court’s judgement had “misapplied crucial doctrines that are designed to ensure respect for the prerogatives of foreign sovereigns and their courts, protect foreign litigants from the burdens of litigating in the United States, and safeguard against the misapplication of foreign law.” Furthermore, the brief argued that the multibillion-dollar award had created an undue burden on Argentina, saying that “the people of the region should not be forced to endure the economic consequences of a judgment that flagrantly misapplies the governing law, entered by a court that never should have exercised jurisdiction in the first place”. The second brief, signed by Chile and Ecuador, focused on the effect this judgment might have on South American businesses, arguing that it could make these regional companies hesitant about engaging in US markets. The brief argued that “the threat of increased and wide-roaming judgments by US courts, based on only the most tenuous connections to the US” may have wider ramifications for commerce between South American and US corporations.
Commercial Legal Innovation

LitFin Hosts Inaugural LitFin Leap Conference

In a post on LinkedIn, Prague-based litigation funder LitFin highlighted the success of its inaugural LitFin Leap Conference, which was held at the company’s headquarters last week. The event saw over 50 participants representing 11 European Union countries in attendance, as lawyers from across the continent gathered to discuss the most pressing issues. The morning of the conference featured discussions around a range of topics, with one panel examining the intricacies of competition law private enforcement, and another that looked at the relationship between law firms and litigation funders. The afternoon saw LitFin host the conference attendees on a sightseeing tour of Prague, followed by an evening set aside for informal networking and drinks. Ondřej Tyleček, partner at LitFin, thanked those who participated in the event, saying: “It warms my to know that we have so many great legal professionals from all corners of EU around us at LitFin, many of whom we can call friends.”
Commercial Legal Innovation

The Opportunities and Limitations of AI for Litigation Finance

In December of last year, LFJ hosted a digital event on the topic of LegalTech and Litigation Finance, examining the variety of technology solutions that litigation funders are already using, and those technologies that may transform the future of the industry. New reporting provides additional insight into the adoption of emergent technology by funders, with many firms hoping to take advantage of AI tools to gain a competitive edge. An article in Bloomberg Law provides an in-depth look at the use of AI by litigation funders, highlighting how newer entrants to the market have adopted it to accelerate their growth, whilst also examining where the limits of this technology still exist. One of the most common applications for AI in the field of litigation finance is the discovery and identification of potential cases to fund, with Legalist and Qanlex recognised as two companies leading the way in this area. Legalist has created its own “truffle sniffer” algorithm to search for cases defined by a set of parameters, whilst Qanlex has built its own proprietary “Case Miner” software to both identify cases and contact those parties whose cases are most suitable. However, senior executives from both companies acknowledge that there are limits to what AI can do for their businesses. Legalist’s CEO, Eva Shang, emphasises that “there’s still a very important human component”, and that AI tools are not yet in a position to “do things that an underwriter would normally do.” Qanlex’s co-founder, Yago Zavalia Gahan said that whilst their Case Miner software allows the company to maximise the efficiency of its lead sourcing, litigation funding remains “a relationship-based business.” Apex Litigation Finance is another funder that utilises in-house AI tools, but according to its CEO, Maurice Power, it is only used in conjunction with human assessment of potential funding opportunities. Power says that AI’s limitations around creating accurate predictions of case outcomes largely stem from its data foundations, explaining that “for any AI predictive analytics model to be really effective, it’s only as good as the data that it has available to it.” For funders like Burford Capital and Parabellum Capital, AI can provide useful benefits in limited applications, but both funders are firm in their assertion that the human element cannot be so easily removed. David Perla, co-chief operating officer at Burford, firmly argues that AI is not a magic bullet and, at present, “no one’s got a tool where you could push a button and say, wow, this is an order of magnitude better—you still have to read the case.” Likewise, Parabellum’s managing director, Angela Ni identifies case management as an area where AI has been most useful to help track and analyse the vast amounts of information involved in a portfolio of cases.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Ministry of Justice Announces New Law to Protect Litigation Funding

Ever since the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR, litigation funders and legal professionals have been vocal in their desire to see the UK government act to protect access to third-party funding. After months of optimistic statements from ministers and MPs, the Ministry of Justice has revealed that it will soon be taking direct legislative action to reverse the Supreme Court’s judgement.  In an announcement released today, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) said that the Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, will be introducing new legislation to ‘make it easier for members of the public to secure the financial backing of third parties when launching complex claims against moneyed corporations.’ The MoJ’s announcement states that the new law ‘will restore the position that existed before the Supreme Court’s ruling last year,’ effectively nullifying the impact of the PACCAR judgement. The announcement clarified that this new legislation will be introduced to Parliament shortly but will only apply to cases taking place in England and Wales. In addition to the planned legislation, the MOJ stated it was ‘considering options for a wider review of the sector and how third-party litigation funding is carried out.’ The review would examine ‘whether there is a need for increased regulation or safeguards for people bringing claims to court,’ with the government acknowledging the growing prevalence of third-party funding. Whilst there was no indication of when or how this review might be conducted, the MOJ said that ‘the next steps and any Terms of Reference of the review will be set out in due course.’ In a separate opinion piece for The Financial Times, Chalk explained the necessity of introducing this new legislation, citing the important role that litigation funding played in the Post Office case and arguing that it was crucial to ensure ‘that justice is available to all, and not merely the preserve of those with deep pockets.’ Referencing the potential review of litigation finance, Chalk highlighted the fact that the funders of the Post Office litigation ‘received £46MM of the £58MM awarded’, whilst the actual claimants were left with ‘a fraction of the total award.’ He emphasised that the government is aiming ‘to strike the right balance between access to justice and fairness for claimants.’
Announcements Commercial Deals

LegalPay aims to double litigation funding AUM to $1B by end of 2024

LegalPay, India's leading litigation funding company, today announced it has successfully managed claims worth USD 400 million since 2020 empowering over 1,000 businesses to recover their pending dues and navigate legal complexities. Building on this momentum, LegalPay aims to more than double the claims under management at USD 1 billion and add 4000 new cases every month by the end of calendar year 2024. “Reaching this significant milestone fills us with immense pride, and we are humbled by the positive impact we havemade on over 1,000 businesses and the 40,000 disputes wehave helped navigate. It reflects our commitment to empowering businesses with innovative financial solutions to manage their legal challenges,” said Kundan Shahi, Founder & CEO of LegalPay. Fueling this growth is LegalPay's unwavering commitment to technological advancements. The company's proprietary risk assessment algorithm fosters balanced risk management for funded cases, while the groundbreaking notice automation system allows for the effortless dispatch of up to 20,000 notices with a single click. LegalPay recently launched QuickSettle, a complimentary service to its core litigation funding offering. This innovative solution provides creditors with immediate access to their pending dues, bolstering their working capital and providing much-needed liquidity. At the same time, debtors benefit from the flexibility of no-cost EMIs, facilitating dispute resolution without compromising their financial stability. QuickSettle is proving to be a game-changer for MSMEs & SMEs, helping them streamline their collections and recovery issues. By avoiding litigation costs for businesses, QuickSettle is not only saving money but also time and resources. The user-friendly technology behind QuickSettle will play a crucial role in facilitating the pending dues for businesses and help them automate & digitalize their collections. Founder & CEO Kundan Shahi commented, "At LegalPay, our mission has always been to empower businesses and provide them with the tools they need to thrive. With QuickSettle, we're taking a giant leap forward in achieving this goal. By revolutionizing the debt recovery process and minimizing the financial strain on both creditors and debtors, QuickSettle epitomizes our commitment to innovation and client-centric solutions." LegalPay is committed to fostering a legal ecosystem where businesses can access justice and manage litigation effectively, ultimately contributing to a stronger and more equitable economic environment. About LegalPay LegalPay is India's leading litigation funding company, enabling businesses to recover their pending dues and manage legal challenges with innovative financial solutions and advanced technology. Through an unwavering commitment to innovation, LegalPay offers a suite of solutions, including traditional litigation funding and the recently launched QuickSettle, that enable businesses to recover pending dues and achieve sustainable growth. With $400 Million in claims under management, LegalPay is reshaping the way businesses approach and conquer legal challenges.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Proposals for an ‘Ethically Sound And Financially Robust’ Future of Litigation Funding

As we look forward to the next decade of litigation funding, it appears that the loudest voices discussing what the industry might look like are coming from outside the sector. However, a new article from a European funder argues that the industry’s own leaders should take a proactive stance towards shaping the future of litigation finance. In a blog post on LinkedIn, Gabriel Olearnik, partner and head of special situations at LitFin, offers his thoughts on the future of litigation funding, and how the industry can continue to grow. Olearnik frames the article from his own personal perspective, suggesting that his views on the subject may be considered ‘heretical’ to some. He argues that in order for the funding industry to grow in a sustainable manner, ‘we must address the inherent challenges and ethical dilemmas it presents with clarity and dynamism.’ In the first of four proposals that Olearnik puts forward, he suggests that there should be a cap on funders’ returns that is equal to 50% of the total awarded damages. He argues that this is not suggested to stifle growth, but rather ‘ensure that the primary beneficiary of litigation funding is justice itself, not profit.’ Whilst Olearnik allows for the option for the cap to be non-binding, he believes that implementing such a measure would ‘maintain the integrity of the legal process.’ Olearnik’s second proposal is ‘the creation of specialised training and education programs’ designed to increase both the awareness and understanding of third-party funding in the next generation of legal and investment professionals. Moving beyond education for the existing legal industry workforce, he argues that these programs could ‘attract a new generation of ethical, socially conscious professionals to this vital industry.’ Moving from education to oversight, Olearnik recommends that the industry introduce ‘regulation of the senior management suite of litigation funders is crucial’, with these regulations being aligned ‘with the Approved Persons Regime under the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA)’. He points out that by adopting these standards, litigation funders can ‘safeguard the industry from potential abuses and foster a culture of integrity and accountability.’  Finally, Olearnik proposes the introduction of measures that would ‘avoid conflicts of interest and ensure capital adequacy’, arguing that these rules can not only ‘protect the interests of those seeking justice but also maintain the stability and reputation of the litigation funding sector.’
Commercial Legal Innovation

A Funder’s Perspective on Climate Litigation 

Although ESG investing is often viewed as a buzzword that lacks specificity and defined guidelines, it is clear that litigation funders have a growing appetite for lawsuits that tackle climate change and environmental impact issues. In a post on LinkedIn, Nivalion highlights the investor’s perspective on funding climate cases, examining both the challenges inherent to these lawsuits and the opportunities that they present for funders willing to back such claims. The funder begins by citing data from UNEP reporting which shows that the number of climate lawsuits being heard globally has risen from 900 in 2017, to nearly 2,200 in 2020. When it comes to jurisdiction, the majority of these cases are being brought in the United States, with less than 20% taking place in developing nations. In terms of the main challenges facing funders when assessing these cases, Nivalion states that there is often a lack of precedent for the claims being brought, especially in European courts. However, Nivalion cites a report from the London School of Economics that shows, when considered globally, ‘55% of cases brought have had a climate-positive ruling’. As a result, whilst there are plenty of cases for funders to consider, climate lawsuits in Europe represent an increased risk profile and are ‘more difficult to assess than the previous cases the Litigation Funding Industry has been funding.’ With this increased risk profile, Nivalion explains that funders may be able to commit to some of these climate lawsuits, as long as their overall portfolio structure is balanced and contains enough cases that have a higher probability of success. Similarly, funders are careful to consider the extended duration that climate litigation can entail, and may need to adjust their pricing terms when investing in these lawsuits.
Case Developments Commercial

Burford Capital Exploring Argentina’s Currency Swap Line with China to Satisfy $16 Billion Judgement

Ever since the landmark $16 billion judgement in the Argentina YPF case, the majority of commentary and discussion has focused on just one question: will it be possible to enforce a judgement of this size? With Burford Capital having previously pressured the court to begin the asset seizure process, it now appears the funder is exploring innovative routes to seeing the Argentine government satisfy its payment obligations. An article in Buenos Aires Times covers the latest developments in Burford Capital’s campaign to collect on the mammoth $16 billion judgement, as the funder is reportedly investigating using Argentina’s $18 billion currency swap line with China to satisfy the outstanding debt. No details are offered as to how this particular mechanism could be leveraged, but Burford filed an information request in federal court in New York on Tuesday, which ‘sought information on various overseas assets held by Argentina.’ Burford has reportedly filed at least 30 of these information requests and is seeking details around ‘YPF shares and dividends paid by the company, overseas commercial transactions and bank accounts, and reserves of gold and precious metals held abroad.’ Burford’s lawyers have stated that Argentina has refused to respond to any requests for information on assets held by the country’s Central Bank, with the governments stating these assets are ‘immune from attachment.’
Announcements Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Releases Interim Financial Report

The Directors present their report (referred to hereafter as the “Interim Financial Report”), together with the financial statements, on the consolidated entity (referred to hereafter as the "consolidated entity" or "the Group") consisting of Omni Bridgeway Limited (referred to hereafter as "OBL", "the Company" or "the Parent") and the entities it controlled at the end of, or during, the half year ended 31 December 2023. Directors The names of the Company's Directors in office during the half year ended 31 December 2023 and until the date of this report are as below. Unless stated otherwise, the Directors were in office for this entire period. Michael Kay - Non-Executive Chairman Andrew Saker - Managing Director & CEO (retired 26 October 2023) Raymond van Hulst - Managing Director & CEO (appointed 26 October 2023), former Executive Director and Co-Chief Investment Officer – EMEA Michael Green - Non-Executive Director Karen Phin - Non-Executive Director Christine Feldmanis - Non-Executive Director   Highlights for the half year ended 31 December 2023 Operational highlights1
  • US$485 million2 first close of Fund 4 and Fund 5 series II capital raise on improved cost coverage terms.
  • €135 million first tranche of debt capital raised for our €300 million Fund 8, focused on global enforcement investments.
  • Significant expansion of our capabilities in the UK, the world's second largest litigation finance market.
  • Investment income of $235.7 million, including income yet to be recognised, with $50.1 million provisionally attributable to OBL.
  • 12 full completions, 6 partial completions, and a secondary market transaction achieving an overall MOIC of 2.4x, and an IRR of 55%.
  • US$21.5 million cash proceeds from the sale of a 25% interest in a portfolio of 15 intellectual property (IP) investments in Fund 4.
  • $260 million of new investment commitments with 38% improved pricing on FY23.
  • $182 million strong pipeline of new investment opportunities representing a further 29% of our commitments target for the year ending 30 June 2024.
  • Possible investment completions with an estimated portfolio value (EPV) of $5.1 billion over the next 12 months (rolling period).
  • Total cash and receivables of $291.2 million; OBL only cash and receivables of $122.4 million ($80.9 million in OBL balance sheet cash and $40.1 million of OBL share of cash and receivables within Funds), plus $60 million in undrawn debt.
Financial highlights3
  • Total income of $135.8 million (including a net gain on deconsolidation of the Fund 4 IP portfolio) derived from diversified sources comprising litigation completions, a secondary market sale, management fees, and interest revenue.
  • Group profit after tax (before non-controlling interests (NCI)) of $33.4 million (1H23: $30.1 million loss after tax); with $47.6 million loss attributable to OBL (the Group’s equity holders) and $81.0 million profit attributable to NCI.
  • Employee expenses of $34.4 million decreased 12% due to team optimisation, a reduction in contractors and higher capitalised costs of investment managers.
  • Corporate overheads of $9.0 million increased 4% due mainly to the amortisation of the Fund 8 insurance premium, notwithstanding significant reductions in other corporate overhead expenses.
  • Carrying value of litigation investments of $654.7 million (30 June 2023: $596.7 million) across 285 funded litigation investments. Negative case developments including lower than anticipated income, extended duration and adverse milestones associated with a funded law firm portfolio have resulted in a $44.9 million reduction of the carrying value. 
1 Represents non-IFRS information. Here Fund 5 is presented at 100% for consistency of presentation across OBL’s Funds. 2 Inclusive of OBL’s co-funding (OBL’s commitment of US$100 million to each Series II fund is capped at 20% of the ultimate fund size (i.e. after further closings). 3 Per the Group Consolidated Financial Statements. The full Interim Financial Report can be read here. The full 1H24 results Investor Presentation can be read here.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Lobbyist for ILFA Calls Failure to Disclose Foreign Entities ‘an Oversight’

As criticism and scrutiny of litigation funding reaches new heights, opponents of the industry will be keeping a close eye on anything that appears to show funders operating in ways that can be framed negatively. A recent article highlights that it is not just funders who are under the spotlight. A newsletter published by Politico earlier this month reported that Miller Strategies, a D.C.-based lobbying firm, said it would update its lobbying disclosures around its work for the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA). These amendments were required, as it had failed to disclose that the following five members of ILFA are foreign companies: Harbour Litigation Funding, Innsworth Advisors Limited, Nivalion AG, Omni Bridgeway and Therium Capital Management. Speaking with Politico, Miller Strategies’ founder and CEO Jeff Miller said that the failure to disclose the foreign entities “was an oversight”, and that the lobbying firm would “amend accordingly.” Miller also added that his firm had paused its work for ILFA at the end of 2023, having been paid a fee of $50,000 per quarter. According to data collated by OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks lobbying spending in U.S. politics, Miller Strategies was paid a total of $110,000 by ILFA in 2023. OpenSecrets tracking also reveals that ILFA paid another lobbying firm, West Front Strategies, $120,000 for its services last year. 
Case Developments Commercial

Burford Capital and Sysco File Objections to Judge’s Denial of Substitution of Plaintiff

As LFJ reported earlier this month, the story of Burford Capital and Sysco’s antitrust lawsuits experienced a new development, with a Minnesota judge denying their joint motions for substitution of plaintiff. As was expected at the time, both the litigation funder and its client have now filed objections and asked the Court to set aside the ruling and allow Burford’s subsidiary to take over the cases. Reporting by Reuters reveals that objections have been filed by both Carina Ventures, a subsidiary of Burford Capital, and Sysco, against U.S. Magistrate Judge John Docherty’s denial of their joint motion for a substitution of plaintiff. The objections, which were filed with the United States District Court of Minnesota on 23 February, both argue that the judge’s order is based on ‘errors of law’. Carina’s filing summarised both parties’ position succinctly, stating that ‘there is no sound policy reason to require Carina to control the prosecution of its claims from the sidelines, rather than litigating them directly in its own name.’ Carina’s objection is formed around two central arguments. Firstly, that Judge Docherty’s order ‘contravenes uniform Eighth Circuit and District Court precedent, as well as the core purposes of Rule 25(c).’ Secondly, that the judge’s ‘public policy reasons for denying substitution are legally erroneous’, with Carina arguing that ‘denial of substitution does not and cannot change Carina’s legal right under the assignment agreement to control the claims.’ Sysco’s objection followed similar arguments around the court’s order running ‘contrary to Rule 25’, whilst also providing three central pillars to its argument around Judge Docherty’s public policy reasoning. Sysco argued that the ‘the public policy favoring settlement also favours substitution’, that the ‘substitution promotes antitrust policy’, and that ‘the doctrine of champerty favors substitution of the claim owner’.  Both Carina Ventures and Sysco concluded their objections by requesting that the Court grant substitution of plaintiff in the antitrust cases.
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Silver Bull Provides Update on Its Arbitration Claim Against Mexico

Silver Bull Resources, Inc. (“Silver Bull” or the “Company”) provides an update on progress with its international arbitration claim against the United Mexican States (“Mexico”). Since our previous update on September 26, 2023, a number of important steps have been achieved in the arbitration process. These include:
  • The appointment of a three-person arbitration panel (the “Tribunal”) by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). The Tribunal convened its first session with the parties on February 13, 2024.
  • Engagement of a quantum expert by the Company to assess the Company’s claim. The evaluation is underway and will serve as the foundation for determining the value of Silver Bull’s claim against Mexico.
  • Establishment of a definitive timeline agreed upon by both parties and the ICSID Tribunal. Silver Bull anticipates filing its Memorial in May 2024, with the Arbitration hearing slated for October 2025.
  • The Company and its legal representatives at Boies Schiller Flexner continue to prepare the case. Document analysis and interviews with pertinent personnel are progressing as scheduled.
For background on the basis for the arbitration and ongoing updates with respect to the arbitration, please refer to the Company’s website www.silverbullresources.com/news. Regarding the arbitration proceedings, Silver Bull is being represented by the global law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, and is financially supported by Bench Walk Advisors via a Litigation Funding Agreement for up to US$9.5 million to finance the case.
Announcements Commercial People Moves

RESPECTED LITIGATION FINANCIERS UNITE TO LAUNCH NEW VENTURE

An experienced and agile team today launched Winward Limited (“Winward”), a litigation finance platform focused on being a funder with a lawyer’s mindset. Winward (www.winward.uk) will be run by Jeremy Marshall, its Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, with committed capital from Rocade Capital. Winward will initially concentrate on funding commercial litigation within Europe and common law jurisdictions although it will also look to capitalise on opportunities that are presented from other jurisdictions that have a mature litigation funding environment. Winward intends to build a balanced portfolio of investments and will aim to work with a select group of law firms and professionals. The initial investment focus is a mixture of litigation and arbitration matters in the fields of antitrust, arbitration, contract, group action, insolvency and tort. Winward’s team is efficient, experienced and is determined to provide a robust service and come to swift and decisive funding decisions, while providing enhanced transparency throughout. Its advisory committee is chaired by Stephen Auld KC, a senior silk from leading chambers One Essex Court in London, and it is comprised of a number of seasoned professionals, all of whom have significant experience of either funding cases or having cases being funded. Wayne Attrill, Arndt Eversberg and Kees Jan Kuilwijk have decades of litigation funding knowledge of, respectively, the Australian, German and Dutch markets. From the UK, Philip Young and Sean Upson, who were senior partners at market-leading litigation practices (Cooke, Young & Keidan and Stewarts Law) will provide essential risk management and litigation skills from the perspective of practising lawyers. Winward is funded by Rocade Capital, a leading litigation finance company backed by one of the world’s leading investment managers. Winward will benefit from a market leading insurance facility provided by co-insurers Arcadian Risk Capital and Litica Ltd. Brian Roth, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of Rocade LLC, said “We are excited to be entering the market with the leadership of a litigation finance veteran in Jeremy Marshall.  This launch is an opportunity for us to contribute to moving our industry forward, as Winward will offer market leading solutions with a streamlined process”. Shoosmiths LLP and Walkers advised Winward Limited. Nixon Peabody LLP served as legal advisor to Rocade LLC. Winward’s insurance broker is Howden Broking Group Limited.

Rocade Capital

Rocade LLC is a specialty finance company focused on litigation finance with a long-term investment approach, in partnership with one of the world’s leading investment managers. Since Rocade’s predecessor was founded in 2014, the platform has funded approximately $1.1 billion of investments in the litigation finance space, primarily consisting of loans to leading plaintiff law firms within mass tort and other complex litigation. Rocade Capital’s flexibility, industry expertise, track record and long-term focus position it to be a leader in law firm lending. Rocade has an experienced team of professionals, located in the Washington, DC area and Houston, TX, which includes both finance industry veterans as well as litigation experts. For more information, please visit www.rocadecapital.com.

Jeremy Marshall

Jeremy was formerly the Chief Investment Officer for Bentham Europe (now Innsworth Advisors), the joint venture between IMF Bentham Limited (now Omni Bridgeway) and subsidiary entities of funds managed by Elliott Management Corporation. He was also a Senior Investment Manager with Omni Bridgeway. He is an experienced litigation finance professional, having worked in litigation finance for well over a decade and, prior to that, having been a partner of a London law firm which litigated a number of funded cases. He has been involved in the funding of a wide variety of cases, including the securities case against Tesco PLC in England (which settled) and a similar case against Volkswagen AG (in Germany). He is a regular contributor and commentator in the litigation finance space.
Commercial Deals

Recoverability and Enforceability are ‘Frequently Neglected’ in Funding Applications

As demand for third-party dispute funding increases, funders are keen to educate potential clients about their own processes for evaluating funding applications and what information they are looking for in these applications. An insights post from LCM’s Roger Milburn, investment manager – APAC, examines the importance of focusing on recoverability and enforceability, arguing that it is an area ‘which would benefit from further attention from those seeking funding and which is sometimes overlooked.’ He points out that, when it comes to submitting funding applications, these are the ‘frequently neglected pieces of the puzzle’ that are essential for any funder when assessing the viability of a case. Explaining the issue from a funder’s perspective, Milburn highlights that it is not enough to simply succeed in the legal action, as this alone ‘does not generally trigger obligations to reimburse the funder and make payment of the contractually agreed returns.’ For a funder to be certain that it can achieve a return on its investment, it is important that an applicant for funding has considered whether the target of the claim ‘has the means to satisfy an outcome of the magnitude contemplated’. If the opponent does not have the resources to meet those payment obligations, it is equally important to scrutinise whether ‘assets exist in jurisdictions where the judgment or award can be enforced.’ Milburn goes on to explore nuances around investor cases brought against nation states or state-controlled entities, noting that whilst it is commonly assumed these states will always have assets to satisfy an award, ‘the question for a funder is whether and how such assets may be seized.’ As a result, prospective clients should aim to provide information around the target state’s history of paying arbitral awards, or what enforcement mechanisms are available for that given jurisdiction. Milburn’s full post, which also provides insights on specific conventions and treaty instruments that manage arbitral award enforcement, can be read here.
Commercial

Aon’s Stephen Kyriacou Named 2024 Specialty Power Broker by Risk & Insurance

The Risk & Insurance 2024 Power Broker winners have been announced, with Stephen Kyriacou, managing director and senior lawyer at Aon, recognized as a ‘Speciality Power Broker’. The post highlights Kyriacou’s work in the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, and his increasing focus on portfolio-based policies over single-case insurance cover.  As part of this recognition, Risk & Insurance spoke with Kyriacou’s clients, who offered significant praise for his work delivering innovative and bespoke solutions to mitigation litigation risk.  One client, a risk manager for a private equity firm, said that the solution crafted byf Kyriacou and his team had “generated meaningful value creation for our portfolio company.” The client went on to praise Kyriacou’s depth of expertise, stating: “His knowledge of the industry market is very strong, and we would not have achieved the result that we did without his involvement and leadership.” In a post on LinkedIn celebrating the announcement, Kyriacou took the chance to give thanks to both his clients and his colleagues at Aon, describing the company’s litigation risk group as ‘the best team in the business.’ The full list of Risk & Insurance 2024 Power Broker winners can be read here. 
Case Developments Commercial

Lansdowne Appoints Lawyers, Continues Search for Funding in ECT Claim Against Ireland

The energy sector is often pinpointed by funders as one of the top targets for investments in litigation and arbitration proceedings, with mechanisms like the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) creating high value claims that require outside financing. One such claim being brought by an oil and gas company appears to be moving forward, with the claimant still in search of third-party funding. Reporting from Alliance News, shared by Morningstar, provides an update on Lansdowne Oil & Gas efforts to bring a claim against the Irish government. The company announced that it has appointed Mantle Law to lead the legal proceedings, saying that the law firm has “the best dispute and arbitration lawyers in the construction, infrastructure and energy sectors.” The claim is focused on allegations that the Irish government failed to act in a fair and reasonable manner under the ECT when it withdrew an exploration license for the Barryroe prospect. Lansdowne had already invested $20 million in the project. Whilst the focus of the announcement is that Lansdowne has appointed lawyers for the case, it also included the detail that the oil and gas company is still ‘in the process of contacting litigation funders to finance the ECT claim and subsequent arbitration process.’ This is particularly interesting given LFJ’s reporting from July last year that Lansdowne was already in talks with litigation funders to obtain financing for the proceedings. This would suggest that Lansdowne appears to still be in the same position, with regards to securing funding, as it was over seven months ago. As part of the announcement, Lansdowne explained its reasoning for moving forward with the claim, stating: "Given the lack of engagement or any ability to have a respectful and frank conversation with the Irish Government, the company believes it now has no alternative other than to pursue vigorously its ECT claim."
Case Developments Commercial

NSW Supreme Court Rules Funder’s Commission is Not Recoverable as Damages

At the core of any litigation funding arrangement is the principle that if the funded party reaches a successful outcome, then the funder will receive a return on their investment out of whatever monetary award is given to the plaintiff. However, a recent judgement in Australia offered an interesting insight into a case where the plaintiff had attempted to argue that it was the defendant who should cover the costs of the funder’s commission. Reporting by the Australian Associated Press, and published by Yahoo News, highlights a recent judgement handed down in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which found that a litigation funder’s commission was not ‘recoverable as damages payable to the plaintiffs.’ Justice Richard Cavanagh’s ruling in the case of Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW found that there was no precedent for the court to make such a ruling, stating clearly that there has been no prior case ‘in which the funder’s commission has been allowed as a component of the damages awarded.’  The background to this latest ruling from the NSW Supreme Court is a case that saw local businesses sue Transport for NSW over its construction of the Sydney light rail project, in which they argued that they had suffered losses due to extended disruptions to the area in which the businesses are based. Last year, a court found that Transport for NSW was liable for damages, with Hunt Leather and Kensington restaurants and coffee cart being awarded $3,693,164 and $317,773 respectively. Following the award of damages, the plaintiffs argued that ‘they have suffered loss as a result of the tortious conduct of the defendant and that they are entitled to be put back into the position they would have been but for that tortious conduct.’ The plaintiffs argued that this should include the 40% funder’s commission, which the parties had agreed to when they entered into a funding agreement with International Litigation Partners (ILP). In his judgement, Justice Cavanagh reasoned that the plaintiffs had reduced the amount of profit they would see from the award, as a result of ‘the plaintiffs’ own conduct or decision to pursue the litigation on a risk free basis.’ Therefore, their claim that the defendant should cover the costs of the funder’s commission did not follow, as the plaintiffs ‘have not otherwise reduced their loss of profits flowing from the defendant’s conduct.’ Justice Cavanagh explained that if he had agreed with the plaintiffs’ reasoning, then the effect would be ‘to visit upon the defendant not just the consequences of its own conduct but the consequences of a decision taken by the plaintiffs, freely and willingly, to share the proceeds of the litigation in return for a benefit to them.’ Justice Cavanagh’s full judgement can be read here.
Commercial

Evaluating Common Criticisms of Litigation Funding

The growth of the global litigation finance industry and the success stories from market leaders continues to generate an equally prominent strain of harsh criticism. However, it is always useful to look past the bold statements and fierce condemnations to analyse whether the most frequently voiced critiques are based in reality. An article from UK law firm Shepherd and Wedderburn reviews some of the most common criticisms of third-party litigation funding, examining whether these arguments have real substance and whether critics of the industry are right to claim, ‘that litigation funding is a malign influence on litigation in this country, rather than an aid to access justice.’ The first criticism that the article addresses is the idea that litigation funding promotes meritless claims, with funders portrayed as a driving force behind frivolous lawsuits in pursuit of financial gain. The authors argue that the structure of the UK legal system provides serious disincentives to filing meritless claims, with the principles of ‘costs shifting and punitive damages’ making it a costly endeavour to back lawsuits that have little chance of success. The article acknowledges that whilst weak claims do still exist, funders have little reason to back them and cites the case of Excalibur Ventures v Texas Keystone, where the ‘funders were required to contribute over £20 million towards the defendants’ costs.’ The second argument against litigation funding that is analysed is the claim that ‘funders wrongfully gain control of the claim and that as such, the integrity of the proceedings will be threatened.’ The authors point out that although funders ‘hold the purse strings of litigation’, not only do they not have control over the litigation proceedings, it would also not even be in their interest to exert this level of control. They highlight that ‘control requires monitoring, and monitoring requires personnel’, meaning that there is little reason for funders to want to take on the burden of additional manpower and expenditure to do this, especially when the business model is based on generating solid returns on investments. Finally, the article deals with the critique that funders are profiteering off legitimate attempts to seek justice, pointing out that the scale of the funder’s return in the Post Office litigation caused many outside observers to question why the victims’ share of the award was so reduced. In response, the authors argue that ‘these figures must not be interpreted in isolation’ and must be considered in the context of the myriad of costs that funders cover during the duration of the case.   Shepherd and Wedderburn’s article concludes by arguing that despite these common criticisms, ‘litigation funding can enable voices to be heard, articulated, and judged in a way that results in a monetary pay-out for their losses, but also vindication.’
Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

KWS Litigation Shapes The Future with Low-Risk Investments and Substantial Returns

KWS Litigation, a pioneering, British litigation funding investment company, is revolutionising the legal and investment landscape by offering a unique opportunity where justice aligns with intelligent portfolio diversification. Creating a realm where justice and investments intertwine, KWS Litigation champions the cause of consumers who have fallen victim to mis-sold loan agreements and business energy claims through deceptive and fraudulent sales practices. Their disruptive approach, rooted in fundamental legal principles upheld by the High Court, introduces innovative solutions that break new ground. Inviting individual investors to finance legal cases in exchange for a share of the proceeds and substantial pro-rata returns, investor capital with KWS Litigation is not only low-risk but also shielded by an FCA-regulated broker insurance bond. This opportunity isn't just smart; it generates a positive social impact, shaping a future where justice prevails and investments flourish. Following a recent landmark judicial review, KWS Law Limited transformed into a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate the High Court verdict for mis-sold consumers. Out of this restructuring, KWS Litigation emerged as a trading style of KWS Law—an Alternative Business Structure, providing more choices, innovation and transparency. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA: 830165), KWS Litigation operates as an agile and client-centric law firm with a laser focus on identifying legitimate litigation claims. Headed by Neil Berkeley, his team of seasoned legal professionals ensures success in various fields of litigation while prioritising investor risk management. “Our commitment is unwavering—to bridge the gap between individuals and powerful entities, championing a legal system where justice is accessible to all.” — Neil Davis-Berkeley, Managing Director at KWS Law KWS Litigation's mission is to equalise the legal landscape by offering financial support and legal expertise to claimants. By rectifying the imbalance between individuals and large corporations in the courtroom, they empower individual investors to achieve outstanding returns, disrupting the dominance of major funders supporting large enterprises. In the UK consumer litigation investment market, characterised by dynamic growth and evolving regulations, KWS Litigation strategically positions itself as a formidable player. Their specialised expertise, robust track record and meticulous approach make them well-suited to attract a diverse array of litigation funders and professional investors. Furthermore, KWS Litigation recently announced a new equity partnership with a leading claims management firm. Facilitating case acquisition, Addlington-West Group seamlessly pairs its clients—everyday people with meritorious cases—for KWS Litigation. The consumer litigation investment sector has experienced significant growth, driven by increased compensation pursuits. Moreover, research conducted by law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP reveals the top 15 UK litigation funders reported record assets of £2.2 billion on their balance sheets in 2020/21, signifying an 11% increase from the preceding year. KWS Litigation specialises in distinct categories of consumer litigation cases, including financial services mis-selling. Their rigorous risk assessment and due diligence processes, compliant with litigation and consumer protection regulations, attract investors of all scales, including individual and institutional investors seeking low-risk alternatives with exceptional returns. The innovative investment model offered by KWS Litigation provides low-risk opportunities with no direct correlation to conventional financial markets. Rigorous selection processes, compliance with regulatory requirements and unique features such as FCA-regulated broker insurance bonds, set a precedent, ensuring a higher potential for returns compared to other asset classes.
Case Developments Commercial

UK Government Announces Plans for Legislation to Overturn Convictions for Post Office Scandal Victims

The Post Office scandal has dominated the headlines in UK media over recent months, highlighting the vast scale of the injustice suffered by the sub-postmasters, and the role that third-party funding played in allowing these victims to seek justice. In another positive step for the victims, the government has now announced plans for a new law that would accelerate the process for overturning many of the sub-postmasters’ convictions. An article by BBC News covers the UK government’s announcement of new legislation that will overturn convictions for the sub-postmasters who were victims of the Horizon Post Office scandal. The new law intends to clear the convictions for the majority of the over 900 sub-postmasters who were wrongfully convicted for false accounting and theft, with the legislation expected to come into effect by the end of July. The legislation sets out specific criteria for the types of convictions that would be overturned, with the law covering those convictions made by the Post Office and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales. However, those convictions from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are not covered by the bill, nor are any convictions that resulted from cases in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The government stated its intention to work with local governments in those regions to ensure that their own plans for quashing convictions are “compatible with the UK compensation scheme.” As part of the announcement of the planned legislation, Post Office Minister Kevin Hollindrake stated that "the scale and circumstances of this prosecutorial misconduct demands an exceptional response.” Hollindrake acknowledged that whilst the new law may “exonerate a number of people who were, in fact, guilty of a crime”, the UK government considers this “a price worth paying in order to ensure that many innocent people are exonerated.”
Announcements Commercial People Moves

QANLEX hires lawyers Marina Gouveia and Alejandro Arias as Investment Managers

QANLEX, a litigation finance technology fund, founded in Argentina and currently operating in Europe and Latin America, recently incorporated two lawyers as Investment Managers to its international team, Marina Gouveia and Alejandro Arias. Marina Gouveia is a lawyer licensed in both Brazil and Portugal, graduated from Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, with a Master's Degree in Mediation, Negotiation and Alternative Dispute Resolution from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. She is a mediator for the Centro Brasileiro de Mediação e Arbitragem and the Centro de Arbitragem e Mediação. In addition, she has participated as a volunteer in numerous international arbitration, mediation, and negotiation competitions, acting regularly as a judge and arbitrator. Gouveia joins the office from Paris, France. Alejandro Arias has a law degree from Universidad Panamericana and a Master's degree in International and Comparative Dispute Resolution from Queen Mary University of London. Prior to joining QANLEX, he worked as an international lawyer at firms such as Dechert and Hogan Lovells. He joins the office from Mexico City. With these two additions in key continental law markets for the firm, such as Mexico and France, QANLEX seeks to strengthen its international presence and expand its operational capacity. In addition, Gouveia's experience and training in both Brazil and Portugal will support the development of these markets. Yago Zavalia Gahan, co-founder of the firm, highlights these signings as very significant for the firm: "The addition of these two legal professionals marks a significant milestone in our commitment to strengthen our international team. We are confident that they will help us successfully navigate legal challenges as we continue to grow and expand into new markets. Their passion for innovation and excellence aligns perfectly with our mission and values." Fernando Folgueiro, co-founder of QANLEX, emphasizes: "The arrival of Marina and Alejandro at QANLEX brings a fresh perspective that is vital to our strategy. Their commitment to our project reinforces our presence in two key countries such as Mexico and France, in addition to supporting the Portuguese-speaking market, taking into account Marina's experience in Brazil and Portugal". About QANLEX QANLEX is the first litigation finance technology fund operating in Europe and Latin America, created by an interdisciplinary team of lawyers and engineers with a holistic view of law, finance and technology. Its mission is to provide capital to pursue meritorious lawsuits with an exclusive focus on continental law countries.
Commercial Legal Innovation

Using Data Analytics to Maximize Efficiency in Litigation Funding Proposals

As in-house counsel and corporate legal departments grow more comfortable with the prospect of utilizing third-party funding, litigation funders are keen to provide education about best practices for securing funding.  In a blog post from Omni Bridgeway, Matt Leland and Carrie B. Freed examine the use of in-house data analytics for companies who are looking to secure third-party funding for their litigation strategy. As the authors explain, for in-house counsel who are seeking litigation funding ‘it is imperative to assess the economics of a case with clear eyes’, and this can be best achieved ‘partnering with their business analytics colleagues.’  By collaborating with their data analytics team, Leland and Freed argued that corporate legal teams can create ‘several efficiencies when preparing the litigation funding proposal.’ The five efficiencies that can be achieved are as follows:
  • Pressure-test damages evidence
  • Avoid discovery emergencies
  • Familiarize personnel with the litigation
  • Foster collaboration with colleagues
  • Generate reliable budget forecasting
Leland and Freed highlight that as ‘businesses accumulate copious amounts of data’, they already have a wealth of information that can be used to produce accurate quantitative analyses of potential losses and also build predictive models for likely outcomes. Whilst this use of data analytics will not be able to provide foolproof assessments, ‘the company can better demonstrate to a litigation funder where the recovery risks lie and what resources might be necessary to strengthen the business’s litigation position.’
Commercial Legal Innovation

The Role of ATE Insurance in the Post Office Scandal

The Post Office scandal has brought the role of litigation funding in opening access to justice to the fore, with the media coverage generating fresh opportunities for funders to talk about their vital role in supporting victims of a miscarriage of justice. However, it is equally important to recognise the role that litigation insurance played in supporting the sub-postmasters legal campaign. In an article for Insurance Post, Alan Pratten, chair of M&A, litigation and tax insurance solutions at Gallagher, provides new insights into the use of after-the event (ATE) insurance in the postmasters litigation. Pratten goes into the nuances and challenges that were overcome as an insurance broker, working in tandem the postmasters legal team which was led by James Hartley, partner at Freeths. Pratten explains that the claimants’ legal teams had struggled to secure ATE initially, with one of the primary issues being that ‘many of the claimants, owing to the findings of the Horizon software, had criminal records, having been convicted of fraud, theft and false accounting.’ Insurers were therefore naturally averse to involving themselves with a case involving fraud, which was compounded by the fact that ‘the majority of existing ATE policies would have been nullified due to some claimants having previous convictions.’ Pratten goes on to detail how Gallagher worked with a panel of UK and US insurers to craft sufficient ATE insurance cover for the sub-postmasters, which involved ‘working with a panel of insurers and reinsurers and tailoring the policy wording in 85 different areas.’ He describes the case as setting ‘a new precedent for ATE in the industry’, and emphasised that the bespoke nature of this policy shows ‘that standardised policies are rarely the best fit and that clients need an insurance broker that understands, and can cater to, their unique circumstances.’
Announcements Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Releases Market Update

Omni Bridgeway Limited (Omni Bridgeway, OBL) (ASX:OBL) announces an update on income and income yet to be recognised (IYTBR) from matter completions as well as provisional impairments of certain investments. Positive developments[1]
  • Following the 31 December 2023 period end, approximately A$48.9 million investment income has been generated, with A$18.4 million provisionally attributable to OBL (excluding performance fees on these completions):
  • Completion of three investments generating approximately A$28.1 million of income recognised (MOIC of 2.02x; IRR of 125%).
  • In principle settlement of three investments resulting in approximately A$20.8 million IYTBR.
  • This is incremental to the 2Q24 Investment Portfolio Report disclosures of A$187 million investment income generated in 1H24 from A$147.9 million income recognised and A$39.1 million IYTBR, with A$32.0 million provisionally attributable to OBL (excluding performance fees on these completions).
  • The A$289.7 million cash and receivables balance at 31 December 2023 does not include any cash proceeds from the additional matters stated above.
Negative developments
  • Case developments during the financial year to date (FYTD24) in OBL’s investments in associates have resulted in a A$14.9 million reduction of the carrying value of the OBL residual share. This mainly relates to a positive judgment for a Fund 1 investment, but at a significantly lower than expected amount. The judgment is subject to various appeal proceedings.
  • Case developments during FYTD24 in litigation investments classified as intangible assets have resulted in a A$33.2 million (A$12.9 million attributable to OBL) reduction of the carrying value. This mainly relates to adverse milestones associated with a funded law firm portfolio for which returns are cross collateralised. While OBL’s investment in this portfolio has achieved a positive return on invested capital overall, the remaining carrying amount is considered impaired under OBL’s accounting policies. Appeals are being pursued and may result in a reversal of the full impairment due to the cross collateralisation.
  • Case developments during FYTD24 in litigation investments classified as purchased claims have resulted in a A$6.3million (A$1.1million attributable to OBL) reduction of the carrying value. This mainly relates to two litigation investments for which the anticipated income is lower than expected or the anticipated duration has extended.
  • The above reductions in the carrying value of the investments are non-cash items.
The amounts stated above are subject to completion of the audit process and will be confirmed in the 1H24 Group Consolidated Financial Statements which will be released on 29 February 2024.  
  1. Fund 5 is not consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements, but the aggregate income figures in this section include 100% of any Fund 5 income recognised/IYTBR.
Consumer

Let’s Set The Record Straight: Consumer Legal Funding is Not Litigation Finance

The following piece was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). Consumer Legal Funding, in its various forms, is pretty mundane. It covers living expenses, such as rent, food, clothes and keeping the lights on. It might even enable a family to provide Christmas or birthday gifts for their children. In every case, its sole purpose is to help individuals and families alleviate the cash-flow problems that arise in the wake of an accident or other tragic circumstances, while the individuals and families are seeking compensation for their situation. It has nothing to do with financing of the litigation. What is happing is that groups and individuals who are not taking the time and effort to know the differences between the two different products and are lumping them together. They are saying all transactions where a party to litigation receives any monetary resources from a non-party are considered Third Party-Litigation- Financing (TPLF). It paints a bleak picture of “foreign adversaries . . . undermining U.S. national economic and security interests through the infiltration of the American litigation system,” and it is the end of the free world as we know it. Consumer Legal Funding is nothing like that, it helps a consumer meet their financial obligations while their legal claim is making its way through the justice system. It does not pay for deposition cost. It does not pay for legal fees or expenses. Most of the time the funds go to help a consumer who has had a car accident bridge the financial gap, but there are other times where it goes to help a person who was wrongfully convicted and spent nearly two decades of their life in prison for a crime they did not commit. Consumer legal funding helped them get their life back in assisting with living expenses while they got the justice they so justly deserved. It helped a Police Officer pay to keep a roof over their family’s head while they had their day in court after being wrongfully discharged. Then the case of a single mother of three who was going back to college to make a better life for her children and had to move out of their home because of a toxic mold infestation. She used consumer legal funding to pay for a mobile home so she and her three children could live in a safe, toxic-free, environment while the situation was fixed. There is the case when a 16-year-old was made a quadriplegic due to medical negligence. The family had to modify their home to make accommodations to care for their loved one. Consumer legal funding was the only way they were able to take care of their teenager while the case made its way through the long legal system. Another was a woman was involved in a car accident and her teeth were shattered because of the accident. She used consumer legal funding to get a new set of teeth. She said, “it gave me my smile back”. Finally, there have been times where consumer legal funding was used to help pay for funeral expenses of a loved one that was tragically killed in an accident. Sadly, some families had no other means of taking their loved one to their final resting place if it had not been for consumer legal funding. But what is happening are those groups and individuals that do not take the time, or want to take the time, to learn what consumer legal funding really is. They hear terms like, “corrupting the legal system”, “leads to filing frivolous litigation” and the latest is “foreign governments are leading to international sabotage of our courts”. Then charge ahead saying “the sky is falling; the sky is falling”.
  • How does giving money to a single mother so she can have her children live in a toxic free environment lead to “international sabotage”?
  • How does allowing a person who spent nearly 2 decades of their life living in 48 square foot space corrupting the legal system?
  • How does allowing a person to get their smile back lead to frivolous litigation?
Litigation Financing is just that “financing of the litigation”. It is used to pay for lawyers. It is used to pay for depositions. It is used to pay for expert witnesses. It is used to pay court costs. None of which consumer legal funding does. In fact, in the legislation that we have promoted we specifically state the funds we provide to a consumer cannot be used for those purposes. Don’t be fooled by someone who is throwing out buzz words that make one think we are on the brink of judicial destruction by confusing Consumer Legal Funding with Litigation Financing. They both may be fruit. But one is an apple and one is an orange. Eric Schuller President Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding http://arclegalfunding.org/
Announcements Commercial Deals

Westbrooke Associates Unveils a Highly Sought-After Investment With Capital Protection

Westbrooke Associates, the official agent for prominent and proven track record investments, is thrilled to announce its latest portfolio prospect. Providing a broad spectrum of options for those seeking attractive returns, Westbrooke Associates is inviting professional investors to invest in an opportunity that offers generous pro-rata returns with capital protection. Showcasing a groundbreaking investment realm in a venture that goes beyond the ordinary, Westbrooke Associates is working in conjunction with KWS Litigation (a trading style of KWS Law) presenting an extraordinary opportunity in British litigation funding. Litigation funding, also known as legal financing or third-party funding, allows investors to support legal cases without the financial burden for claimants. Enabling litigation to pave the way for justice, this opportunity opens up an intelligent avenue for diversifying investment portfolios, providing a powerful tool to level the playing field. Recent market research highlights how the global litigation funding investment market has demonstrated substantial growth potential, valuing the market at approximately $12.2 billion in 2021 and anticipating it to surge to an impressive $25.8 billion by 2030. Following a landmark judicial review, KWS Litigation offers access to both justice and financial growth by inviting individual investors to finance mis-selling loan agreement legal cases and business energy contracts. Meeting the demands of a disruptive and evolving industry, KWS Litigation--a trading style of KWS Law Limited, operates as an Alternative Business Structure, providing choice, innovation and transparency. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA: 830165), KWS Litigation is a client-centric law firm focused on identifying legitimate litigation claims. Their mission is to rectify courtroom disparities between individuals and large corporations. The stringent claimant selection process is also a testament to the firm's commitment to excellence. In a symbiotic relationship that benefits mutual clients, the Claims Management firm, Addlington-West Group, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN:838665), collaborates with KWS Litigation as an Introducer of Clients. Leveraging this partnership, Addlington-West Group has access to a pool of legitimate and meritorious prospects actively seeking funding and assistance in pursuing claims of financial mis-selling. Coupled with legal opinions from independent barristers confirming the highest likelihood of a successful outcome, each investment benefits from legal expertise, case due diligence and streamlined process management. Holding the promise of significantly larger returns compared to traditional alternative asset classes and in stark contrast to the extended timelines associated with typical private equity deals, this opportunity presents a return in approximately 12 months. Moreover, this unique and potent avenue stands independently from conventional financial markets, market fluctuations and volatility. Safeguarding the investor journey at every turn, upon completion of each successful case, the investor receives the principal amount and exceptionally high pro-rata returns. Even in the unlikely event of an unsuccessful case, the principal amount is secured via an insurance bond, offering unparalleled protection. Additionally, investor flexibility means the option to reinvest at any stage, providing each investor with the autonomy to navigate their investment with confidence. Throughout the process, KWS Litigation meticulously adheres to litigation and consumer protection regulatory requirements, ensuring compliance and transparency at every step. Discussing the new opportunity, Company Director for Addlington-West Group Magaret Bladon says: “I envision a future marked by even greater success and positive transformations. Our commitment to excellence, coupled with our unwavering dedication to client satisfaction, positions us as industry pioneers. I predict a future where our innovative approaches and client-centric strategies will continue to redefine the landscape. Together, we are poised for a journey of unparalleled success, achieving new milestones and setting industry standards for years to come.” Neil Davis-Berkeley, Managing Director for KWS Law says: “We believe in providing individuals with a voice, especially those who have been marginalised or faced injustices. Litigation funding ensures everyone, regardless of financial means, has access to justice and aligns with our goals for fairness, transparency and the right to seek restitution. Our commitment is unwavering – to bridge the gap between individuals and powerful entities, championing a legal system where justice is accessible to all." Westbrooke Associates facilitates strategic sector engagement, allowing investors to align their interests with industries they are passionate about, from promoting sustainability and social impact to embracing technological innovations. As seasoned and strategic players, this opportunity boasts a robust track record, specialised expertise and a meticulous approach, positioning it as a formidable choice for qualifying investors. If you want to seize the opportunity to be part of a venture that not only stands at the forefront of legal innovation but also promises exceptional returns, contact Westbrooke Associates to request the Investor Memorandum. Alternatively, you can visit www.westbrookeassociates.com to learn more, email info@westbrookeassociates.com or telephone 0203 745 0294.
Announcements Commercial Deals

New Research Shows Businesses Increasingly Open to Reframing Legal Department from Overhead to Capital Source

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new independent research demonstrating that an increasing number of businesses are recognizing litigation portfolios as value sources and are becoming more open to tools that help them reframe the legal department from overhead to capital source.

In the nearly 15 years since Burford’s inception and in the wake of the last great recession, how businesses view their litigation and arbitration portfolios has drastically changed. Pressures on cost management have been persistent through turbulent economic times, Covid, supply chain constraints, geopolitical tensions and slow economic growth in major economies. To better understand how in-house lawyers and finance professionals expect these dual issues of cost management and value generation to evolve in the years ahead, Burford commissioned independent research with 400 GCs, heads of litigation, senior in-house lawyers, CFOs and other leaders responsible for litigation decision-making in their companies.

Highlights from the research include:

  • Businesses' already significant investment in litigation is growing: 43% of GCs say litigation spend will grow at least 25% in the next five years.                 
  • GCs and CFOs are aligned in seeking innovation for the legal department: More than half of businesses (55%) either have an affirmative recovery program (18%) or intend to build one (37%)—making it all the more important that best practices are in place to manage costs and optimize outcomes.
  • GCs and CFOs agree that collaboration is needed but differ on its extent: 70% of GCs and CFOs say it is important that the legal department find new ways to recover value—signaling a shared desire to reframe the legal department as a capital source. However, three times as many in-house lawyers as finance professionals say the decision to pursue potential claims is generally left to legal with little input from finance.
  • Legal finance is a key tool and finance has an important role in leveraging it: Almost three quarters (73%) of all respondents say their organizations have used legal finance (39%) or would consider doing so (34%), and more than two thirds (67%) of finance professionals feel that legal can increase its value to the business by using tools like legal finance.

Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive Officer of Burford Capital said: “The trend of ‘corporate finance for law’ is growing, as confirmed by this research and our own business, given that more than 50% of our commitments are now with corporates. That’s due to the impact legal finance can have on reducing the impact of litigation on the P&L and business leaders’ desire to use their capital to maximize shareholder value, not pay lawyers. This marks our 15th year in business – and while the legal field is generally slow to change, this research reinforces that CFOs and GCs are thinking about their legal departments differently, and Burford is laser-focused on helping companies reframe the legal department more as capital source than overhead.”

The Litigation Economics: CFOs and GCs weigh in on best practices in optimizing legal department value survey can be downloaded on Burford’s website. The research was conducted by GLG from December 2023 – January 2024.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset 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 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Dubai, Sydney and Hong Kong.

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

Commercial Regulatory Issues

An Overview of Litigation Funding in Switzerland

When the European litigation funding market is discussed, it is perhaps unsurprising that these conversations are largely focused on third-party funding opportunities within member states of the European Union. However, outside of the EU, there is potential for Switzerland to become one of the continent’s most interesting jurisdictions for the adoption of third-party funding services. A blog post from Swiss Legal Finance (SLF) provides an overview of third-party litigation funding in Switzerland, examining the potential for the local market to grow, and outlining the best use cases for litigation finance in the country. The article begins by noting that whilst litigation funding has existed in Switzerland for the last 20 years, we have not seen widespread adoption of third-party funding services with ‘only a handful of funders currently active’. However, SLF point out that this may be change in the near future, ‘in part because local asset managers are becoming increasingly interested in litigation funding as an investment vehicle.’ The current state of litigation finance in Switzerland is a market that is unregulated yet recognised by Swiss law, with the Federal Court going as far as stating that there is a ‘ethical obligation for lawyers to inform their clients of the existence of TPLF.’ The post also explains that the Swiss legal model avoids some concerns around third-party funding that arise in other jurisdictions, noting that a funder’s presence has ‘no impact on lawyer-client privilege.’ This is because the Swiss system allows for legal documents to be shared with third parties without any requirement to disclose those documents to the defendant. As for the types of Swiss proceedings that litigation funding could be best suited for, SLF suggest that beyond domestic litigation, ‘domestic and international arbitration proceedings are also an attraction, because they often offer a substantial potential payout and take less time than litigation proceedings.’ SLF acknowledge that as class actions do not currently have a strong foothold in the country, there is little room for funded opportunities in this area. However, they also suggest that there is still a wide array of potential use cases, including divorce and inheritance cases, or even defendant funding.