Hannah Sadler has joined the firm as a vice president and member of the patent investment team.

“We are very happy to welcome Hannah to GLS Capital as a vice president and member of our team focusing on patent investments,” said Adam Gill, a GLS Capital managing director, co-founder, and leader of the firm’s patent-related investing. “Attracting top-tier talent is essential for continuing to help our clients achieve success, and Hannah’s background in patent litigation will be invaluable for navigating the complexities of patent investments and helping to drive our mission forward.”

Sadler focuses on diligence around qualified underwriting opportunities and monitoring and managing the firm’s patent litigation investments.

Before joining GLS Capital, Sadler was a patent litigator at Global IP Law Group in Chicago. She has over a decade of experience with all aspects of patent portfolio management and enforcement, including prosecution, litigation, sales, licensing, and portfolio valuation.

Sadler earned her J.D. (cum laude) from DePaul University College of Law and her Bachelor of Arts from the University of San Diego.

Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX: OBL) (Omni Bridgeway, OBL, Group) announces the key investment performance metrics for the three months ended 30 September 2024 (1Q25, Quarter). 

Summary 

• Investment proceeds of A$105.8 million in 1Q25; A$14.2 million provisionally attributable to OBL¹, excluding management and performance fees. 
• Performance fees of A$9.7 million received during the Quarter². 
• Management, transaction and equivalent fees of A$5.9 million during the Quarter. 
• 15 full and partial completions in the Quarter, delivered an overall multiple on invested capital (MOIC) of 2.7x. 
• 7 full completions during the quarter had a combined fair value conversion ratio of 97%³. 
• A$129 million in new fair value added from A$138 million of new commitments. 
• Strong pipeline, with agreed term sheets outstanding for an estimated A$198 million in new commitments, if converted. 
• Transaction fees have successfully been included in nearly all new commitments made in FY25 and/or negotiated in new term sheets. 
• OBL cash and receivables of A$114 million at 30 September 2024. 
• A$0.8 billion of fair value in potential completions over the next 12 months. 
• Good progress in relation to the strategic focus areas of cost optimisation and secondary market transactions. 

Key metrics and developments for the Quarter 

Income and completions 

• During the Quarter, five full completions and seven partial completions were recognised, and two full completions and one partial completion were recorded as income yet to be recognised (IYTBR), resulting in proceeds of A$105.8 million for the quarter, with A$14.2 million provisionally attributable to OBL (excluding management and performance fees¹). 
• The overall MOIC on these 15 full and partial completions during the quarter (incl. IYTBR) was 2.7x.
• The seven full completions during the Quarter (incl. as IYTBR) had a combined fair value conversion ratio of 97%.³ The fair value conversion ratio for all 31 fully completed investments (excl. as IYTBR) since transitioning to fair value per 31 December 2023 is 111%. 

New Commitments

• As per the date of this report, new commitments of A$138 million were made to 10 new investments as well as to a number of investments with increased investment opportunities. This level, proportionate to the full year target, reflects the typical northern hemisphere seasonality, and is in line with prior years.
• Total new commitments include A$28 million of potential external co-fundings for new investments originated and managed by OBL. OBL will be entitled to separately agreed management fees, transaction and performance fees on such external co-funding.
• The fair value associated with these new commitments is A$129 million.
• Strong pipeline of 34 agreed exclusive term sheets, representing approximately A$198 million in investment opportunities.
• Transaction fees have been successfully included in the majority of new commitments made and term sheets signed in FY25. Transaction fees have typically been structured as a combination of an upfront fee and an annual recurring fee at or exceeding on average 2.5% of the investment commitment (in total over the life of the investment). 

Portfolio review

• As at 30 September 2024, A$0.8 billion of fair value is assessed to potentially complete in the 12 months until 30 September 2025 (12 Month Fair Value). The 12 Month Fair Value is the proportionate part of our total book fair value, which has expected cash inflows over the applicable 12 month period based on the underlying probability weighted net cash flows fair value models. All, part or none of these investment inflows may eventuate during the 12-month period.

Corporate 

As announced during the full year results presentation on 29 August 2024, the current strategic focus is on cost optimisation, and fair value validation through completions and secondary market transactions. 

Secondary market discussions on multiple assets are progressing well. A status update will be provided at the semi-annual results presentation or through specific prior ASX announcements.

The AGM of the Company will be held in Sydney, on 19 November 2024, and will be in person only. For more information, visit https://omnibridgeway.com/investors/annual-generalmeeting.

Cash reporting and financial position

At 30 September 2024, the Group held A$113.6 million in cash and receivables (A$71.2 million in OBL balance sheet cash, A$1.0 million in OBL balance sheet receivables and A$41.4 million of OBL share of cash and receivables within Funds).

In aggregate, at 30 September 2024 OBL had approximately A$114 million to meet operational needs, interest payments, and fund investments before receiving any proceeds from investment completions, secondary market sales, management and transaction fees, and associated fund performance fees.

Footnotes

1. Represents indicative cashflows (excluding management and performance fees) from the Funds to OBL in connection with the investment completions. It represents the aggregate estimate of the cash distributed and yet to be distributed under the various distribution waterfalls of the Funds assuming investment proceeds are gross cash proceeds. The Fund's capital status and waterfalls operate on a cash collection and distribution basis and do not align with the accounting treatment. Accordingly, the income and NCI attribution disclosed in the Group Consolidated Financial Statements will not necessarily match this.
2. Performance fees received are subject to clawback arrangements, to ensure that performance fees ultimately reflect actual fund returns and applicable hurdles. As a result, accrual of performance fees for accounting purposes will generally occur in a later period to the cash receipt.
3. The fair value conversion ratio indicates the ratio of cash proceeds and deployments in connection with completed investments, discounted back to the date of the last reported portfolio fair value (30 June 2024 currently), compared to the reported fair value of such completed investments as at that prior reporting date.
4. All metrics presented are on a full investment basis, excluding the impact of co-investments or partial secondary sales. This reflects a change in methodology from market disclosures prior to FY25, and better reflects the performance of the investments originated, underwritten and managed by the Group.
5. Full life to date metrics include any partial completions in prior periods for the investments involved.
6. Relates to full completions recognised and yet to be recognised during the Quarter.
7. IYTBR reflects the status as per 30 September 2024. If a matter was originally reported as IYTBR for a period and has been recognised as revenue in a later quarter, it is no longer reported in this table as IYTBR in the initial period.
8. Includes Funds 2&3, Fund 4, Fund 6, and Fund 8 and represents OBL's portion of each respective Fund.
9. Includes Fund 5, which is not consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements, and represents OBL's 20% interest.
10. Includes Funds 2&3, Fund 4, Fund 6, and Fund 8 and represents the external investors' portion of each respective Fund. 

Further information

Further information on terms used in this announcement is available in our Glossary and Notes:

https://omnibridgeway.com/investors/omni-bridgeway-glossary (Glossary)

https://omnibridgeway.com/docs/default-source/investors/general/omni-bridgeway-notes-toquarterly (Notes)

The Glossary and Notes contain important information, including definitions of key concepts, and should be read in conjunction with this announcement.

The investments of Funds 2&3, Fund 4 and Fund 6 are consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements, along with the interest of the respective external fund investors.

The investments of Fund 8 are consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements. Fund 1 was deconsolidated on 31 May 2023; its metrics, effective from this date, are not disclosed in this document. The Fund 4 IP portfolio was deconsolidated on 8 December 2023 following the sale of a 25% interest in these investments.

Fund 1 and Fund 5 are not consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements; the residual interest in Fund 1 and in the Fund 4 IP portfolio are recognised as an investment in associate, Fund 5 is brought in at the Group’s attributable 20% share of income, assets, and liabilities. Throughout this document, Fund 5 is presented at 100% values (except where otherwise stated) for consistency of presentation across OBL's funds.

Commitments include conditional, and investment committee approved investments. This report includes a number of concepts, such as fair value and income yet to be recognised, which are classified as a non-IFRS financial measure under ASIC Regulatory Guide 230 “Disclosing non-IFRS financial information”. Management believes that these measures are useful for investors to understand the operations and financial condition of the group. Unless expressly stated, this non-IFRS financial information has not been subject to audit or review by BDO in accordance with IFRS.

The figures presented in this document are based on preliminary data and have not been audited. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, these figures are subject to change and should not be considered final. 

This announcement is authorised for release to the market by the Disclosure Committee.

NorthWall Capital ("NorthWall"), a leading credit investment firm delivering private capital solutions to counterparties in Western Europe, today announces the appointment of Shannon Cody as Head of Business Development, EMEA. Shannon will focus on strengthening relationships with existing global institutional investors, while expanding the firm's client base through new partnerships. Her efforts will play a key role in driving capital growth across NorthWaII's core strategies, which include Opportunistic Credit, Senior Lending, Asset-Backed Lending and Legal Assets.

Shannon brings with her over 15 years of experience in business development roles at leading financial institutions. Most recently as Head of EMEA Business Development at Mudrick Capital Management, she led the firm's business development, sales and client services across EMEA and APAC. Shannon was pivotal in growing Mudrick's London office, spearheading campaigns focused on distressed and stressed credit strategies. Prior to this, Shannon held senior roles at Barclays and Morgan Stanley, where she led capital introduction efforts across Europe.

Fabian Chrobog, Founder and Chief Investment Officer at NorthWaII Capital, said: "We are thrilled to welcome Shannon Cody to NorthWall at this exciting time for our firm. Her extensive experience in establishing long-term partnerships with investors will be crucial as we continue to expand our footprint across EMEA. Shannon will help us deepen relationships with our institutional investor base as we continue to scale our flagship credit strategies."

Shannon Cody, Head of Business Development, EMEA at NorthWaII Capital, said: "I am excited to join NorthWall and look forward to working with the team to expand our presence across the region and drive continued fundraising success."

Earlier this year NorthWaII announced the final close of its flagship North Wall European Opportunities Fund Il and associated vehicles attracting more than €640m in investor commitments, surpassing its initial €500m target and more than doubling the size of its predecessor vintage.

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

On the afternoon of September 25, the "International Conference on the Third-Party Funding Industry" was successfully held in Beijingi. The Conference was hosted by the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center (BIDRC), organized by Houzhu Capital, and co-organized by Dingsong Legal Capital.

The conference received support from the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Other supporting organizations included the Chinese Society of International Law, China-Asia Economic Development Association, China-Africa Business Council, Queen Mary University of London, Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Hilco IP Merchant Banking, Nivalion, Dun & Bradstreet, Caijing, and Law Plus. The Conference attracted over 300 guests in person and more than 60,000 participants online.

Huang Jin, Chairman of the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center and President of the Chinese Society of International Law, and Yu Jianlong, Vice President of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and Vice President of the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), delivered opening remarks. The Conference was moderated by Jiang Lili, Commissioner and Secretary-General of BAC/BIAC.

Huang Jin first warmly welcomed and sincerely thanked all participants and supporters on behalf of BIDRC. He stated that this Conference is the first international conference hosted by BIDRC, marking a significant milestone. As the operational entity of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center, BIDRC plays a crucial role in supporting the establishment of the international commercial arbitration center and leading the high-quality development of arbitration in China. He emphasized the need to understand the key trends in the development of international commercial arbitration, including humanization, modernization, internationalization, localization, integration, and digitization. He also stressed the importance of improving a robust arbitration system, cultivating world-class international arbitration institutions, and creating a top-tier business environment characterized by market orientation, rule of law, and international standards. These efforts will enhance China’s foreign-related legal system and strengthen its capacity.

Yu Jianlong highlighted in his speech that, given the profound changes in the international situation and trade patterns in recent years, enhancing corporate competitiveness and strengthening corporate compliance are crucial for promoting high-level opening-up and facilitating the high-quality international expansion of Chinese enterprises. Third-party funding is an important tool for improving companies' ability to address overseas disputes. With the accelerated pace of Chinese companies expanding abroad and the deepening integration of the domestic legal service market with international standards, third-party funding is gradually being accepted and utilized by more Chinese enterprises and legal professionals. He expressed that this conference provides an excellent platform for the industry to explore third-party funding. He hopes participants will strengthen collaboration between academia and practice, deepen their understanding of corporate needs, and continuously learn from international best practices. He also looks forward to fostering cooperation between third-party funding institutions and enterprises.

As a leading scholar in the field of third-party funding, Professor Mulheron from Queen Mary University of London was invited to deliver a keynote speech on the state of third-party funding in England and Wales. Full speech (recording and transcript) available at Houzhu Capital’s WeChat Official Account

In her address, Professor Mulheron examined the rise and evolution of third-party funding in the region, and talked about issues surrounding self-regulation and government oversight within the industry. She provided clear explanations of typical business models in third-party funding, the fee structures for funders, potential costs borne by funders, after-the-event (ATE) insurance, and protections for funded parties. She also offered in-depth insights into cutting-edge issues and perspectives within the field. Professor Mulheron concluded with five key takeaways about third-party funding in England: First, the market is very established and sophisticated, with many funders, brokers and ATE insurers in the market now; Second, third party funding features in both English litigation and arbitration;  Third, because of the criteria which funders apply to cases under their business models, only less than 10% of all cases pitched to the funders are funded; Fourth, third-party funding must comply with industry codes of conduct, which include minimum capital requirements for funders; Finally, while England possesses considerable experience in judicial practices concerning third-party funding, there have been debates and disagreements regarding the structure of funding and the validity of funding agreements, and the legislature is taking steps to address relevant issues to further support third-party funding, as it is indeed becoming a huge global market.

During Panel I, Professor Fu Yulin from Peking University Law School served as the moderator. The panelists included Zhang Haoliang, Head of the Business Development Division (International Cases Division) of the BAC/BIAC; Wei Ziping, Director of the Oversight and Coordination Office of CIETAC; Chen Bo, Deputy Secretary-General of CMAC; Yu Zijin, Consultant of HKIAC; Zhang Cunyuan, Director of the China Region of SIAC and Chief Representative of the Shanghai Representative Office; and Huang Zhijin, Director for North Asia and Shanghai Representative Office of ICC. The discussion centered on third-party funding and arbitration rules, drawing on the practices and experiences of the respective institutions. The panelists exchanged insights on recent updates to arbitration rules concerning third-party funding, disclosure requirements, measures to prevent conflicts of interest, and relevant cases processed by their organizations. The panelists concurred that third-party funding is evolving rapidly in practice, and arbitration institutions generally adopt a relatively open stance towards its use in arbitration. They also recognize the necessity for ongoing practice to fully understand the impact of third-party funding on arbitration procedures and rules, with the aim of maintaining the independence and justice of arbitration while better serving the parties.

During Panel II, the discussion was moderated by Fei Ning, Senior Consultant of Houzhu Capital. The panelists included Quentin Pak, Director at Burford; Fu Tong, Co-founder and CEO of Houzhu Capital; Michael D. Friedman, CEO of Hilco IP Merchant Banking; Lau chee chong, Senior legal counsel of Omni Bridgeway in Singapore; Falco Kreis, Senior Investment Manager and Head of the Munich Office at Nivalion; Zhang Zhi, Founder of Dingsong Legal Capital; and Zhu Zhen, Product Sales & Solutions Director of Dun Bradstreet. The panelists discussed third-party funding practices both domestically and internationally, sharing their institutions' experiences across various jurisdictions. They explored a range of topics, including case selection processes and criteria, monetization and funding in the field of intellectual property, the interaction between arbitration rules and funding practices, and risk management for enterprises expanding into foreign markets. They noted that the client base and demand for litigation funding are becoming increasingly diversified, prompting third-party funding institutions to expand their product and service offerings. The panelists expressed optimism regarding the development of third-party funding in China while highlighting unique challenges that the Chinese market faces compared to the international landscape.

During Panel III, the discussion was moderated by Wang Jialu, Co-founder of Houzhu Capital. The panel featured Zachary Sharpe, Head of the Global Disputes Team at Jones Day’s Singapore office; Liu Xiao, Partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Zhong Li, Partner of Hui Zhong Law Firm; Wang Zheng, Partner of Hongqiao Zhenghan Law Firm; Li Zhiyong, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of CSCEC International; and Li Lu, Chief Compliance Officer of Essence Securities Asset Management Co., Ltd. The panelists discussed the application of third-party funding, sharing common challenges and solutions they encountered in their past practices, each informed by their specific business contexts. They addressed various issues, including how to set and manage reasonable expectations regarding case progress and outcomes, effectively handle confidentiality and privilege concerns, and navigate disclosures along with related conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the panelists agreed that third-party funding plays a unique role in promoting dispute resolution and accessing justice, especially in bridging the gap between law firms and enterprises in complex cross-border litigation and arbitration.

The successful convening of this conference has established a valuable channel for ongoing communication between domestic and international practitioners and scholars in the field of third-party funding. It has enhanced understanding and awareness of third-party funding within the domestic market and facilitated positive interactions and cooperation among third-party funding institutions, dispute resolution agencies, and relevant users. This will significantly advance the further development of third-party funding in China and make an indispensable contribution to helping Chinese enterprises effectively address cross-border disputes and achieve high-quality development.

The following article was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

A Court of Appeal ruling last week is a very positive development for the many consumers currently seeking justice after discovering they were charged commissions that they were not properly told about when they took out motor finance.

With a large number of such claims being brought in the County Courts, the Court of Appeal heard three cases jointly in order to deal with some key issues that commonly arise.

In Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, Wrench v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Court of Appeal foundin favour of all three claimants, allowing their appeals.

The cases concerned the common scenario in which a dealer asks the consumer if they want finance; and if so, the dealer gathers their financial details and takes this information to a lender or panel of lenders.

The dealer then presents the finance offer to the consumer on the basis that they have selected an offer that is competitive and suitable. If the consumer accepts it, the dealer sells the car to the lender, and the lender enters into a credit agreement with the consumer.

The consumer will be aware of the price for the car, the sum of any downpayment, the rate of interest on the loan element of the arrangement, and how much they will have to pay the lender in instalments over the period of the credit agreement. They would expect the dealer to make a profit on the sale of the car. But - at least until the Financial Conduct Authority introduced new rules with effect from 28 January 2021 - the consumer might be surprised to discover that the dealer who arranged the finance on their behalf also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them; which was financed by the interest charged under the credit agreement.

In this situation, the dealer is essentially fulfilling two different commercial roles – a seller of cars, and also a credit broker - in what the consumer is likely to see as a single transaction. The commission is paid in a side arrangement between lender and dealer, to which the consumer is not party. Sometimes there might be some reference to that arrangement in the body of the credit agreement, in the lender’s standard terms and conditions, or in one of the other documents presented to the consumer. But even if there is, and even if the consumer were to read the small print, it would not necessarily reveal the full details - including the amount of the commission and how it is calculated.

Turning specifically to the three cases before the Court of Appeal, in one of these, Hopcraft, there was no dispute that the commission was kept secret from the claimant. In the other two, Wrench and Johnson, the claimant did not know and was not told that a commission was to be paid. However, the lender’s standard terms and conditions referred to the fact that ‘a commission may be payable by us [ie. the lender] to the broker who introduced the transaction to us.’

In Johnson alone, the dealer / broker supplied the claimant with a document called ‘Suitability Document Proposed for Mr Marcus Johnson’, which he signed. This said, near the beginning, ‘…we may receive a commission from the product provider’.

Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court against the defendant lenders seeking, among other things, the return of the commission paid to the credit brokers. All three claims failed in the County Courts, but in March this year, Birss LJ accepted their transfer up to the Court of Appeal, directing that the three appeals should be heard together – and acknowledging that a large number of such claims were coming through the County Court, and an authoritative ruling on the issues was needed.

After considering the issues in detail, the Court of Appeal allowed all three appeals. It found the dealers were also acting as credit brokers and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. The court found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. If there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can only be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court heldthat the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

This ruling will prove hugely significant to the large number of similar claims currently being brought in the lower courts; and Sentry Funding is supporting many cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance.

We can now expect many more such claims to start progressing through the County Courts.

Sarama Resources Ltd. ("Sarama" or the "Company") (ASX:SRR)(TSXV:SWA) is pleased to advise that it has entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement ("LFA") with Locke Capital II LLC, an arm's length party that specializes in providing funding for dispute resolution (the "Funder") to commence international arbitration proceedings in relation to its investment dispute (the "Dispute") with the Government of Burkina Faso (the "Government").

The Dispute pertains to the illegal withdrawal of the Company's rights to the Tankoro 2 Exploration Permit (the "Permit") (refer news release 5 September 2023). The Permit covered the Tankoro Deposit which was the focal point of the Company's Sanutura Project (the "Project") which featured a multi-million ounce gold resource.

Litigation Funding Agreement

The LFA provides a four-year non-recourse loan facility ("Facility") of US$4.4 million to the Company to cover all fees and expenses related to its Claim to Arbitration (the "Claim").

Security of the Facility is limited to the Claim, associated potential proceeds and all benefits arising from the property and assets of the subsidiary companies comprising the ownership chain (the "Chain") pertaining to the Project (refer Annual Information Form, 2 April 2024). The Facility has been structured to enable the Company to continue to operate and consolidate its business outside the Chain without encumbrance or lien from the LFA.

All monies advanced through the Facility are non-recourse and repayable only in the event of a successful Claim or settlement of the Dispute that results in the receipt of Proceeds ("Proceeds") by the Company or in the event of a default by Sarama under the LFA. In the event of the occurrence of a material adverse change under the LFA, the Funder shall be entitled to recover only those funds which were advanced but remain unspent. The Funder's return is directly tied to the successful award and settlement of the Claim, with the total amount payable being a function of time and total Proceeds receipted. The priorities for distribution of receipted Proceeds are set out in the LFA and where commercially and legally sensitive, shall remain confidential.

If there is no settlement or award (or no default by Sarama under the LFA), the Company does not have an obligation to repay the loan. A detailed budget has been approved as part of the LFA, which covers all expected legal and ancillary costs associated with the arbitration process.

Plans for Arbitration

On 29 November 2023, the Company issued a Notice of Intent to Submit Claims to Arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso. The Government of Burkina Faso did not respond substantively to the Company's efforts to reach an amicable resolution of the dispute. With funding to support legal costs secured, the Company is now preparing to lodge a Request for Arbitration with the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID"). The Company will seek full compensation for the loss suffered which may include, but will not be limited to, the value of the Permit, the value of the Company's historic investments in the Project, the value of the Project at the time the Permit was withdrawn and damages the Company has suffered as a direct result of the Government's actions. The Project hosted a multi-million-ounce gold resource which was the subject of a substantially complete Preliminary Economic Assessment and fast-tracked development study at the time of the Government's illegal actions.

The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP ("BSF"), a leading international law firm, to assist with legal matters pertaining to the dispute (refer news release 17 October 2023). BSF is an internationally recognised dispute resolution law firm with extensive experience representing investors in international investment arbitrations in the mining and natural resources sectors worldwide.

Background to Claim

On 31 August 2023, the Company received notification from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Quarries of Burkina Faso (the "Minister") that the Company's application for the Permit, received in August 2021 and granted to Sarama in November 2021 had been purportedly "rejected", even though the previous Minister had approved the Permit in accordance with the applicable laws nearly two years prior.

On 6 September 2023, during his public presentation at the Africa Down Under Mining Conference in Perth, the Minister, Simon-Pierre Boussim, stated that the Permit was available for purchase. Based on the notification from the Minister and his subsequent actions, the Company was forced to interpret the Minister's letter of 25 August 2023 as withdrawing the Company's rights to the Permit. The Minister did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Company on the matter.

The unlawful withdrawal of the Permit by the Minister, resulting in the removal of the rights to the land conferred thereunder, has rendered the Project valueless to Sarama, consequently destroying the value of the Company's investment in the Project.

Sarama's President, CEO & MD, Andrew Dinning, commented:

"The establishment of a non-recourse funding facility to cover all expenses related to the Company's arbitration case represents a major step forward in its pursuit of redress for the substantial damages suffered as a result of the Government of Burkina Faso's illegal actions.

Sarama's legal representatives, Boies Schiller Flexner, are highly experienced and have a very successful track record in international investment disputes, including an arbitration claim brought by Indiana Resources (ASX:IDA) against Tanzania which saw the company recently receive the first tranche of a US$90M settlement.

The Company will now proceed with filing a Request for Arbitration and intends to prosecute its case to the fullest extent possible."

CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

Information in this news release that is not a statement of historical fact constitutes forward-looking information. Such forward looking information includes, but is not limited to: the sufficiency and continued availability of funding for arbitration; statements regarding the possibility of initiating international arbitration proceedings in accordance with the bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso; the impact, if any, of the actions of the Government on the Company's investments in mineral projects in Burkina Faso; the ability for the Company to successfully recover proceeds of an award or settlement from Burkina Faso; the filing of the material change report; the occurrence of an event of default or material adverse change under the LFA; and providing further information in due course. Actual results may vary from the forward-looking information due to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Such factors include, among others, risks related to the uncertainty as to the outcome of arbitration; the success of the Claim; foreign country and political risks, including risks relating to foreign operations and expropriation or nationalization of mining operations; delays in obtaining or failure to obtain governmental permits, or non-compliance with permits; as well as those factors disclosed in the Company's publicly filed documents. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.

Sarama does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable laws.

Earlier this week, Legal Funding Journal attended IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, which brought together senior executives and thought leaders from across the legal sector to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues and developments. The one-day conference featured a wide array of discussions covering everything from the broader state of the funding market and external attitudes towards it, to nuances around the evolving relationships between funders, insurers, law firms and claimants.

An overarching point of discussion across the day was whether the market is still growing and if it is still heading in a broadly positive direction, or if there are warning signs on the horizon such as potential regulatory expansion. 

Rose Ioannou, managing director at Fortress Investment Group, made the important point of defining what is meant by ‘growth’, noting that in terms of the number of market participants and wider understanding of litigation funding there is certainly growth, whilst she also cautioned that it was less clear if there would still be continued growth in the volume of available capital. Across these categories, Ioannou emphasised that the most exciting area of growth is in the broader acceptance of funding in the dispute resolution community and that despite the industry’s “naysayers”, there was an increased “sophistication and understanding” of funding participants.

Looking at the near-future for the European funding market, an audience question prompted a discussion about whether we would continue to see gradual growth across the continent or if there was an explosion of activity around the corner. Iain McKenny, founding director of Profile Investment, offered the boldest prediction and suggested that whilst European funding has been “slow and steady for a long time”, renewed activity in individual jurisdictions could indicate that “we may be approaching a tipping point”. Other speakers were more hesitant in predicting a major increase in funding activity across the region, with Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital Partners explaining that it will continue to vary between European countries, with the Netherlands being an example of a jurisdiction where there has been a tangible market boom.

Outside of the European mainland, the issues facing the UK funding market were another hot topic, with speakers reflecting on how the industry has adapted to living in a post-PACCAR world and speculating on how the new government will approach litigation funding. 

Woodsford’s Steven Friel acknowledged that whilst it was disappointing that the election and change in government had resulted in the Litigation Funding Agreements bill being forced down the agenda, it is encouraging that Kier Starmer’s legal background means that the new Prime Minister “intrinsically understands” the issues at play. When asked to speculate on whether we would see legislation to solve PACCAR be introduced in 2025, the panellists were split down the middle, with half agreeing that it would follow the CJC review next year and the other speakers suggesting it would likely get delayed until 2026.

On the subject of future regulations, the recommendations outlined in the recent European Law Institute report were discussed, with the issue of disclosure as one of the key topics. Lerika Le Grange, partner at Taylor Wessing, highlighted that whilst there was a general openness to some level of disclosure, an attempt to mandate the disclosure of the source of investment funds could create a sense of nervousness among investors.

The dynamics of the relationships between funders, insurers and law firms was another frequently discussed area at the conference, with one of the primary questions being: are funders and insurers increasingly competing against one another? Most speakers at the event shied away from describing the two business models as being in direct competition, with Verity Jackson-Grant from Simmons & Simmons describing them aptly as businesses that serve different purposes whilst still supporting and facilitating cases between them. In a similar vein of thought, Kerberos Capital Management’s CEO Joseph Siprut acknowledged that whilst there can be “some tension” between funders and insurers, he highlighted that from a funder’s perspective “the ability to layer in insurance is value additive”.

Overall, IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum once again succeeded in delivering a full day of informative and engaging discussions, whilst providing the opportunity for key stakeholders to network and exchange ideas as they continue to try and shape the best path forward for the industry.

The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.

Every leader knows the importance of maximizing the potential of their people, clients, and business. It's about recognizing the value of your resources and optimizing their efficiency. This can be achieved by streamlining, leveraging technology, and investing in people, however, one solution that is gaining momentum in the legal world is outsourcing.  

Traditionally, businesses used outsourcing to save money by obtaining help with non-essential administrative tasks, thereby avoiding the costs of hiring and training employees and purchasing equipment and it’s been proven to be an effective way to control expenses. 

However, today, Outsourcing 2.0 is more than just a cost-saving measure. It is about collaborating to grow, thrive and maximize value.  

Take the humble phone call as an example. Whether it is a new inquiry or an existing client, every call is important and ensuring that they are answered, and opportunities are never missed is particularly crucial for law firms, whatever their size. On average one in 10 calls to a law firm is from someone making a new inquiry. If they go unanswered that is business lost, or worse, it is business that goes to the competition.  

Outsourcing your calls could help you never miss a call, avoid interruptions, and support business continuity. For example, it can allow your firm to operate seamlessly, whether it is a busy day in court, meetings, an office move, or a holiday. Furthermore, it should be able to work as a faultless extension of your business, so that no one knows you have a partner to answer your calls, for example.  

The same goes for other functions. Marketing and IT tasks can take away time that attorneys could be spending on billable hours. Just like you would hire an expert in a field that is out of your legal realm, outsourcing can support law firms to save valuable time, manage overflow, reduce costs, improve the litigation process, and allow employees to focus on key tasks. 

As a business leader, you understand your business's strengths and areas where it needs support better than anyone else, so it is logical to look at ways you can focus on these strengths and seek assistance for other aspects.  Especially when you consider the tangible benefits that outsourcing can deliver to businesses, all while making financial sense. The key is finding the right partner. 

So, how can you ensure that outsourcing works for your business? 

Outsourcing will only work in the long term if both parties approach it as a partnership. It's all about collaboration. With commitment and effective communication from both sides, long-term success can be achieved, however, it does require investment of time to get it right; treating it as a one-time deal will limit its potential. 

So, it's all about finding your perfect partner, one that aligns well with your business, not only in terms of skills and experience, but also in terms of culture and values. This requires thorough research and careful evaluation. 

There is no doubt that outsourcing can help you to unleash your law firm's potential by allowing you to focus on your core competencies while delegating other activities to external experts. This can lead to increased efficiency, cost savings, and access to specialized skills and resources that may not be available in-house freeing up time and resources to drive growth and also provide the flexibility to scale operations up or down based on business needs, making it a powerful tool for unlocking and maximizing a company's potential. 

But you must approach it with the right attitude if you want to unleash the potential of your people and your business. Getting the right partnership and outsourcing can serve as a strategic tool to help law firms reach new heights of success in 2025 and beyond. 

Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America, a global leader in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. Moneypenny has an award-winning culture, with over 1,250 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

Moneypenny and VoiceNation have an excellent service offering to help legal clients drive new business by responding quickly to new inquiries on their behalf.

The service means that VoiceNation’s team of professional US-based call handlers will help improve the conversion rate of new inquiries, by responding to them quickly on the phone, and qualifying them by asking a series of screening questions provided by, and tailored to, the client. As a result, legal firms’ own teams can focus on converting qualified leads, saving their teams time and effort.

VoiceNation’s highly trained professional call handlers know the importance of making a good first impression and the new Intake Service is backed by full CRM and Zapier integration.

How it Works

• When a new completed web form arrives at a client’s CRM, this alerts VoiceNation’s OpenAnswer platform
• OpenAnswer immediately flags to a VoiceNation agent about the lead
• Using the completed web form details, the lead is qualified by phone, or any other required channel
• All information requested by the client is then fed back into the client’s CRM for immediate conversion
• The service integrates with all CRM platforms and contracts can be completed via Docusign

Eric Schurke, VP of Moneypenny and  VoiceNation said: ‘This service enables legal companies to respond to new leads before their competitors do. We’re doing the heavy lifting of sifting through new opportunities, efficiently and cost-effectively, by qualifying new leads, so in-house sales teams can then convert hot leads faster.  Our clients should see benefits of the new service really quickly, achieving faster new business growth.’ 

On Wednesday October 16th (Thursday the 17th, in Australia), LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled 'Spotlight on Australia.' The event featured Michelle Silvers (MS), CEO at Court House Capital, Stuart Price (SP), CEO and Managing Director of CASL, Maurice Thompson (MT), Global Head of Litigation Funding at HFW, and Jason Geisker (JG), Head of Claims Funding Australia. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Unfortunately, Jason Geisker was unable to join the panel due to technical difficulties. However, the other three panelists covered a broad range of topics relating to litigation funding in Australia. Below are key takeaways from the event:

ET: Australia is a pioneer in the use of litigation finance. Can you provide an overview of the Australian market?

MS: Australia has been involved in litigation funding for over 20 years, since the late 1990s. At the moment it's an interesting environment, we have listed and private funders, hedge funds, law firms and private insurers. Our market is dominated by litigation funders, not necessarily alternative capital sources, which is what tends to happen overseas. We've witnessed the market globalizing with offshore funders entering, and local funders expanding abroad, but a lot of the offshore funders have withdrawn from the market in recent years.

The market is small - Australia's population is 25-28 million, so you can imagine that the way we operate here is quite different than overseas. We have about 10 players operating in the Australian market at the moment. Our environment is quite different than overseas, it's smaller and well-knit. We all know each other quite well, we compete for the same cases. It's fierce competition, and an exciting environment.

ET: In terms of return profile, I 've been privy to a lot of litigation finance resolutions on a global basis, and in my review of the data, it strikes me that Australian funders are some of the best in terms of producing consistent returns, albeit the quantum of financing is a little bit smaller than what you might find in the US. Generally speaking, do you agree with that? And to what would you attribute the performance of Australian funders?

SP: I attribute that to the predictability of outcomes, and that really comes from the jurisdiction being established for a long time. Some of the growing pains that other jurisdictions are having, are dealing with new issues and new laws. Most of our bench that deals with litigation funding and new actions, they were senior and junior lawyers, partners, barristers, and now have become judges. So there is an ingrained knowledge of the system, and an appreciation of the importance of litigation funding to provide access to justice.

That in itself also goes with the Australian civil justice system, which is an absolute Rolls Royce. It is gold-plated, it is costly, so you need to be able to navigate that in a way where duration risk doesn't become an issue to you. So when you talk about performance, I absolutely agree Australia is up there as one of the better performing markets in the world. We select our cases well and we settle cases before trial (about 95% of cases settle before trial - that brings duration risk down). That combination of factors are all a reflection of the 25 years-plus of existing in this market.

ET: Up until recently, outside of the class action space, lawyers have not been able to engage in contingent fee arrangements, but jurisdictions like Victoria have changed this dynamic. Can you discuss the current state of contingent fee arrangements and its likely trajectory, and the implications for the litigation funding market?

MT: Everything Stuart mentioned about this being an isolated part of the world, and the impacts that has on doing business here, is absolutely correct. A flip on that though, is that degree of isolation that we've had as a nation has always had us looking closely outside of our borders. So we observe what's happening in other parts of the world and that influences how we think.

Some of the comments you've heard might suggest that we're a slightly immature legal market, in the sense that politics have impacted the courts and there has been some degree of uncertainty since 2020. But I'd flip that and say that this is a case of us looking hard at what we need moving forward and what will suit Australia. The largest differential between us and the United States, for instance, is that we never want to see a situation in Australia where the overweight child might sue the fast food chain because some lawyer provides contingent fee arrangements, all those sorts of things. We've laughed at that scenario overseas, and we don't want that here. So the whole idea of contingent fees stirs up all sorts of feelings in our legal environment, and in having to deal with those negative perceptions, we have to think very carefully about how we structure things moving forward.

In the period between 2020 and now, there's been a proliferation of class actions in Victoria to take advantage of the contingent fee arrangements. Not all law firms have done that - my law firm, for instance, we're running three large plaintiff class actions at the moment, we've got a few others in the pipeline. We're currently not fixated on Victoria, because among other things, the way it's been dealt with - generally if you want to take full advantage of a contingent arrangement sanction by the court and legislation, you have to bear all the risk of the costs and a security for costs order against the law firm. And most law firms won't stomach that at all (because this is so new). But other law firms see this as an opportunity - particularly large national firms like Maurice Blackburn for instance. Large firms like that will take advantage because they can finance the risk. If I'm going to sell that to my partners in London, Asia or elsewhere, it's a different proposition.

So we are inching closer to a wider opportunity for law firms to take on contingent risk, but we're not there yet. I don't think it's going to be the free for all that people have been concerned about. That's not to say there hasn't been class actions flooding into Victoria as opposed to other states, but I think that will slow down. And so a firm like us is looking beyond the Victoria borders.

To view the entire 1-hour discussion, please click here.

Top legal finance firm, Nera Capital, is expanding its presence in Holland by opening a new office in Amsterdam, due to its involvement in several high-profile legal claims in the WAMCA. 

The strategic move into innovative and renowned offices in the prestigious Zuidas district is largely driven by significant legal actions that will proceed through the Holland court system.

In January 2020 the Netherlands introduced a new piece of legislation known as the Wet Afwikkeling Massaschade in Collectieve Actie (WAMCA) which translates to the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action Act.

It allows for collective legal actions, enabling multiple claimants to combine similar cases into a single lawsuit, and is a key factor in Nera Capital’s decision to increase its presence in the region.

Firm Director, Aisling Byrne, explained that this approach not only streamlines the legal process but also increases the efficiency and impact of group claims. 

Ms Byrne added: “For Nera Capital, this system means a more robust and coordinated effort in legal pursuits, ensuring clients benefit from a comprehensive and streamlined legal strategy.

“Our expansion into Amsterdam reinforces Nera Capital’s desire to establish a stronger foothold in a key European financial and legal hub, positioning us at the centre of key industry developments and opportunities. 

"Leveraging our cutting-edge technology and embracing legal frameworks like the WAMCA reflects Nera's dedication to ensuring that we remain at the forefront of the industry.

“The move marks more than just a new office - it's another strategic step in our expansion, giving us the platform we need to further scale our operations and continue delivering top-tier service for our clients and partners.”

The change comes at a fruitful time for the legal funder, which is undergoing a period of heavy growth.

In recent months Nera Capital has continued to build its success through acquiring positions in a number of cartel and anti-trust claims in various jurisdictions, including the USA whilst also onboarding several new prominent funding partners. 

Reflecting on Nera’s recent success, Ms. Byrne noted that the expansion into Amsterdam aligns with the company’s core priorities of fostering collaboration and expanding strategic networks.

Westbrooke Associates announces its expansion into the burgeoning litigation funding sector, marking a new chapter in its legacy of connecting investors with high-growth, socially impactful opportunities.

As a brokerage known for identifying innovative investment vehicles, Westbrooke Associates is now expanding into litigation funding, a niche asset class that has seen rapid growth in the UK and globally. Litigation funding provides financial backing to individuals and small businesses that would otherwise be unable to afford legal representation. This growing financial tool has proven essential in levelling the playing field in the legal system, enabling claimants to pursue justice against larger, well-funded opponents.

With rising litigation costs and increasingly complex cases, the demand for litigation funding has surged, particularly in markets such as the UK, which boasts one of the most advanced regulatory environments for this asset class. The global litigation funding market is experiencing extraordinary growth, with revenues projected to reach $43 billion by 2033, up from $17.1 billion in 2023.

As one of the most compelling alternative investment opportunities today, litigation funding offers investors a low-risk, high-return asset class that remains largely uncorrelated with traditional financial markets. This makes it an attractive option for portfolio diversification, especially during times of market volatility.

A report by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP highlights that the top 15 litigation funders in the UK saw assets grow to a record £2.2 billion in 2020/21, an 11% increase from the previous year. With such exponential growth, Westbrooke Associates is poised to help investors capitalise on the robust potential of this asset class.

Westbrooke Associates' expertise in sourcing profitable investments that align with strong ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) standards makes this a natural step forward. The firm has already established a successful collaboration with Addlington-West Legal Limited, offering investors access to litigation funding opportunities that prioritise both financial returns and social impact.

Litigation funding not only delivers strong returns but also plays a pivotal role in supporting justice. Westbrooke’s unique investment model ensures a rigorous due diligence process, with cases thoroughly vetted to back only those with strong chances of success. Investors benefit from fixed returns—typically generated within 18 months—while also supporting businesses that face significant financial barriers due to litigation costs.

Moreover, Westbrooke Associates' commitment to protecting investor capital is evident via the surety bond offered by Addlington-West Legal. This guarantees 100% capital protection in the event of unsuccessful claims, ensuring investor security and peace of mind. This level of risk mitigation, combined with relevant regulatory compliance, makes litigation funding a particularly attractive opportunity for Westbrooke Associates’ clients.

For investors seeking a safe, high-potential asset class, litigation funding through Westbrooke Associates represents an ideal investment opportunity. The firm’s longstanding reputation for identifying forward-thinking ventures is further bolstered by this new foray into the litigation funding space. Westbrooke Associates continues to demonstrate its ability to deliver innovative and socially responsible investment opportunities that align with the evolving needs of its investor base.

As the litigation funding market continues to grow, Westbrooke Associates is at the forefront of offering investors access to this dynamic and impactful sector. Whether you're a seasoned investor or looking to diversify your portfolio, Westbrooke Associates ensures that every investment opportunity provides both profitability and a positive societal impact.

For more information about how to invest in litigation funding through Westbrooke Associates or to request the Investment Memorandum, please visit www.westbrookeassociates.com or call 0203 745 0294.

Treviso – FiDeAL®, a leader in litigation finance consulting, is pleased to announce a new strategic partnership with Outmatch, a renowned French financial boutique specializing in M&A operations and in legal disputes resolution.

This collaboration marks a significant step in further strengthening FiDeAL’s litigation finance consulting services and in expanding its operations into the French legal market, one of the main European markets for complex legal disputes.

FiDeAL and Outmatch will combine their respective expertise to provide tailored solutions to French law firms and companies, supporting them with access to innovative financial tools and optimizing their legal strategies in high-profile litigation.

This partnership represents a milestone for both companies, opening new opportunities in the French market and offering a broader range of services to companies involved in complex disputes.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the global voice of commercial legal finance, has welcomed the findings of the newly published European Law Institute (ELI) report ‘Principles governing the third-party funding of litigation’. 

The report, authored by UK High Court Judge Dame Sarah Cockerill and Professor Susanne Augenhofer, is the product of more than two years of investigative work to develop principles and guidance for the TPLF market, and represents a new, independent contribution to the legitimate and effective use of TPLF. 

Following the publication of the report, Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, commented:

‘This new report, authored by seasoned legal observers, recognises that commercial legal finance increases access to justice for European businesses and consumers and provides ‘vital improvement in access to justice’ (pg.19) when made available. Contrary to the repeated claims of big business, funding helps level the playing field for those exercising their rights against multinationals with almost unlimited resources’. 

The report also cautions against imposing new regulations on the TPLF market. Instead, it advances a ‘complementary approach’ involving guidance to funders on issues to be taken into account before entering into a TPLF agreement, together with publishing a new Appendix drawing together the recommended minimum content of a funding agreement.

Purslow commented: 

‘ILFA agrees with the report’s conclusion that proscriptive one-size-fits-all regulation isn’t appropriate for a sector like ours. It risks funders ceasing to offer funding, inevitably leading to what the authors rightly identify as ‘serious access to justice issues’.’

The full report from ELI can be read online here. 

About ILFA

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and like us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official. 

About ELI 

The European Law Institute (ELI) is an independent non-profit organisation established to initiate, conduct and facilitate research, make recommendations and provide practical guidance in the field of European legal development. The ELI secretariat is hosted by the University of Vienna, Austria.

The report team was led by Susanne Augenhofer (Professor of Law, Austria), Dame Sara Cockerill (High Court Judge, UK), and Henrik Rothe (Professor of Law, Denmark) (until July 2022). 

With federal lawmakers following in the wake of some state legislatures in introducing draft legislation to impose new regulations on litigation funding, it is perhaps no surprise that the US judiciary has now seen fit to take a more proactive approach in examining the role of third-party legal funding in the country.

An article in Reuters covers the news that the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules agreed last week to begin a study into litigation finance, to ascertain whether a federal rule governing disclosure of third-party funding was necessary. The decision followed a panel meeting last Thursday in Washington, D.C., and notably comes shortly after over 100 companies signed a letter calling on the judiciary to introduce greater transparency measures for litigation funding. 

The chair of the Advisory Committee, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, said that the debate over third-party legal funding “is an important issue” and that it “is not going away.” Following the committee’s decision, a subcommittee will be created to study the issue but as the Reuters article highlights, this does not provide a timeline on when, or even if, a new rule governing disclosure would be introduced. U.S. District Judge John Bates, chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, seemed to make a distinction between the “theoretical problem” that litigation finance could pose, and the study’s purpose to uncover whether there were “actual problems”.

In response to the committee’s decision, Page Faulk, senior vice president of legal reform initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, called on the judiciary “to move forward swiftly in adopting mandatory disclosure requirements.” In contrast, the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) said that it welcomed “the opportunity to be a part of the conversation to demonstrate how legal finance is a valuable part of the legal economy and has not resulted in any of the negative outcomes that the U.S. Chamber has cut from whole cloth.”

Legal-Bay LLC, The Pre-settlement Funding Company, announced today that there is finally some resolve on the horizon for hernia mesh litigants. Becton, Dickinson and Company, the parent company of BARD, has finally reached a settlement agreement on the thousands of lawsuits they've been battling for almost twenty years. The settlement will resolve cases in Rhode Island and the federal MDL in Ohio for plaintiffs who allege their hernia mesh devices were defective and caused physical injury.

While the exact terms of the settlement remain undisclosed, Legal Bay can report that BD has a product liability fund set aside for litigation purposes in the neighborhood of $1.7 billion. Analysts predict a large portion of that amount will be paid out to plaintiffs over multiple years. It should be noted that BD says the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing and is prepared to defend itself against future lawsuits.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay commented, "Legal Bay has been one of the few companies to fund hernia mesh from the beginning of this litigation. We applaud the lawyers who've been able to negotiate this global settlement, and will continue to assist plaintiffs who need their share of the money now rather than wait out the long process to receive their payout." 

If you need a lawsuit loan from your hernia mesh lawsuit, please apply HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Attorneys anticipate that settlement amounts will be within the $50,000 to $100,000 range, but some plaintiffs have been awarded millions. Payout amounts vary greatly, and will likely use a "matrix" to determine damages, based upon the severity of the plaintiffs' injuries. Also, because of the variables from case to case, there is no set precedent for how much a plaintiff will receive, if they receive anything at all. However, with this latest court ruling, most plaintiffs—even those with newly-filed cases—can expect to see quick outcomes in the near future with favorable results.

Recent settlement examples:

• $4.8 million verdict for Rhode Island plaintiff Paul Trevino in a state court trial in 2022
• $255,000 verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the second bellwether trial in 2022
• $500,000 verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the third bellwether trial in 2023

The preceding list comprises only a handful of the many verdicts against hernia mesh companies, and there are thousands more still awaiting their day in court. Nevertheless, Legal-Bay stands ready to help plaintiffs in financial need obtain settlement loans so they can wait out the time it will take to resolve at trial. 

Legal-Bay is one of the leading lawsuit loan funding companies, offering a fast approval process and some of the best rates in the industry. They can offer immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse lawsuit loans—sometimes referred to as loans for lawsuit or loans on settlement—are risk-free, as the money does not need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the settlement loan is less of a loan and more like a cash advance.

Anyone who has an existing lawsuit and needs cash now can apply for loan settlement and receive a quick payout, normally within 24-48 hours. There are no income verification forms or credit checks required. If you haven't yet filed suit, Legal-Bay can put you in touch with an attorney who specializes in hernia mesh cases.If you require an immediate cash advance loan settlement from your hernia mesh lawsuit, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where skilled agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.