Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3077 Articles
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Former MEP Argues Malaysia Dispute Reinforces Need for Litigation Funding Regulation

Ever since the publication of the Voss Report and its recommendations for increased regulation of litigation funding in the EU, there has been much debate about what the future of regulatory oversight should look like for this growing industry. In the absence of any updates on the advancement of the Voss Report’s proposal, critics of third-party funding are reigniting their calls for the EU to act and impose stricter regulations on funders operating in Europe. Writing in an op-ed for Funds Europe, former British MEP Mary Honeyball highlights the recent example of Therium’s funding of the case against the Government of Malaysia by the descendants of the Sultan of Sulu. Honeyball suggests that this case, and its $15 billion arbitral award, underscores the lack of transparency around litigation funding and goes so far as to suggest that “this case harnesses colonial divides for financial gain.” Honeyball goes on to argue that this case, along with other similar activities by litigation funders, are examples of why the EU must move to strictly regulate litigation financing, suggesting that without such regulation, “this risks millions of European consumers becoming pawns in profit-seeking.” Honeyball rejects the idea that self-regulation is sufficient to act as guardrails to the litigation funding industry, and that the EU must not only enact transparency requirements, but use its legislative authority to set appropriate standards for the industry.
Case Developments Commercial

LCM-Funded Claim Against DeepMind is Thrown Out by High Court

Representative actions in the UK have often been viewed as strong vehicles for litigation funders to pursue their dual objectives of widening access to justice and delivering significant financial returns on their investments. However, a new ruling from the High Court has demonstrated the risk-on nature of the asset class, as a class action against a Google subsidiary has been thrown out for failing to meet the ‘same interest’ requirement. Reporting by The Law Society Gazette outlines the judgement from Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE, which denied the request to proceed with a claim against DeepMind over allegations that the company misused the private information of 1.6 million individuals. The action focused on the alleged use of individuals’ medical records which were transferred to DeepMind in 2015, in order to develop a diagnostic and medical records app called Streams. The action, funded by LCM Funding UK Limited, failed to meet the court’s base requirements for a claim to proceed. In her ruling, Williams stated that “This is not a situation in which every member of the Claimant Class, or indeed any given member of the class, has a realistic prospect of establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their relevant medical records or of crossing the de minimis threshold in relation to such an expectation.” Furthermore, the judgement went on to emphasize that “it cannot be said of any member of the Claimant Class that they have a viable claim for more than trivial damages for loss of control of their information.”
Case Developments Commercial

Patent Lawsuit Funding Back in the Spotlight in Delaware

There may be no area of litigation funding that has attracted more headlines and controversy than the area of intellectual property and patent litigation, particularly in regard to court orders requiring the disclosure of third-party funding and patent ownership. This has been most aptly demonstrated in Delaware, as U.S. Chief District Judge Colm Connolly has pursued a campaign determined to shed more and more light on the involvement of third-party funding in patent lawsuits. Reporting by The Wall Street Journal offers a detailed and comprehensive summary of Judge Connolly’s actions dating back to April 2022, when he first issued a standing order mandating the disclosure of third-party funding arrangements in the lawsuits brought before his court. This has led to numerous back-and-forth disputes with plaintiffs and their attorneys, with the most high profile disputes still ongoing between the court and plaintiffs that are potentially linked to the non-practicing entity, IP Edge.  This saga is expected to evolve further in the coming months, as Judge Connolly has called for a hearing next month in one of these lawsuits, and ordered the disclosure of any records connecting the plaintiff and their attorneys to IP Edge and Maxevar, a patent consulting firm whose principals are also the founders of IP Edge. In an opinion published earlier this month, Judge Connolly provided a severe warning that he has seen evidence “to suggest that Mavexar and its principals may have used Backertop and Ms. LaPray, along with other LLC plaintiffs and their nominal owners, to perpetrate a fraud on this Court.” Maya Steinitz, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told WSJ that the last 12 months of Connolly’s campaign have demonstrated “that there could be situations where there are undisclosed parties who should be considered the real party in interest.”
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

LEGALPAY LAUNCHES USD 3 MILLION FUND TO FACILITATE SPORTS DISPUTE RESOLUTION INDIA

LegalPay, India’s first and largest litigation financier, is breaking into the world of sports law disputes. In a first, the company has announced the launch of a $3 million fund for sports disputes with a focus on supporting the rights of athletes in India while also addressing disputes pertaining to broadcasting rights, endorsement & advertising aiming to boost the sports industry. With a tenure of four years, the sports focused fund has no limit on the ticket size. Over the past decade the sports industry in India has evolved with the advent of major sporting leagues like IPL, ISL, Pro Kabaddi and IHL. This development has been accompanied by rising number of disputes pertaining to contracts between sports players and other parties, doping policies, harassment in sports, liability with regard to sports injuries, broadcasting rights and conflict of interest regarding the endorsement by players. The fund will be utilized to manage these disputes in the Indian legal sector The company has created a robust and fast process mechanism to run the fund in a fair and swift manner. The company has drafted strict rules and regulations which will govern its use. Talking about this, LegalPay CEO Kundan Shahi states “As the country is evolving towards sports, it is our mission and duty to safeguard the interests of our aspiring athletes. Therefore, LegalPay has launched this fund to provide athlete representation, and legal advice as well as help them with dispute resolution which has to encourage more students to take up sports as a career.” While the spirit of this initiative is effectively encapsulated by Shahi, he goes on to add that this fund will be used in an all-encompassing manner to cover all kinds of disputes in this sector. LegalPay is a Fintech startup that focuses on litigation funding and helps people at large to get access to justice through litigation and arbitration. LegalPay has funded over 2500 litigations and arbitrations across the globe in different jurisdictions. It has a network of 2000+ lawyers who work on different assignments as per their expertise. Shahi stated that through litigation funding, LegalPay will help the athletes by funding their commercial litigations and arbitrations as well as provide them embedded finance for their representation and general legal advice. This fund will ensure that every prospective athlete will have the right to dream big and choose sports as a career in India. About LegalPay LegalPay is India’s 1st Fintech startup that specializes in Legal and debt financing. LegalPay through it’s Litigation Financing and embedded lending product has played a pivotal role in the legal market as it helps businesses and individuals at large to get access to justice. LegalPay has funded over 2500 litigations and arbitrations across the globe in different jurisdictions. It has a network of 2000+ lawyers who work on different assignments as per their expertise. LegalPay has played a monumental role over the last 3 years in the revival of various companies which were undergoing CIRP under IBC, 2016. LegalPay through its own NBFC provides funds to corporate debtors that ranges from Rs. 30 Lakhs to 50 Crores.Currently LegalPay has disbursed more than 100 crores as Interim Finance to 17 different businesses. LegalPay is backed by a strong team which comprises of CAs, Lawyers (Alumni of India’s top-ranking college), MBA ands Economists.
Read More
Consumer

A Mutually Beneficial Approach to Litigation Funding

Discussions around the use of litigation funding often focus on the individual relationships between funders and law firms, or between funders and the claimant, and evaluate these dynamics in isolation. A new blog post takes a step back and looks at the harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship between all three of the core parties, in what it describes as ‘The Litigation Funding Triangle’. An article published on LinkedIn by Mustang Funding examines the funder’s approach to working with clients and law firms, explaining a holistic methodology that is founded on the idea that no funding deal should move forward without the certainty that is wanted by, and beneficial to, all parties.  Mustang begins by noting that one of the core issues that can arise with third-party funding is a situation where litigation is funded and reaches a successful conclusion, but it only amounts to a ‘pyrrhic victory’ where the plaintiff is left with little in terms of financial compensation. Mustang argues that this bare minimum approach to funding is ‘entirely unethical’ and that funders should equally weight both the probability of success and the probability of the claimant receiving tangible financial benefits. Alongside the value to the plaintiff, Mustang points out that the use of funding should also come as a benefit to the law firm involved, thereby allowing counsel to focus on securing the maximum award for their client without concerns about capital shortcomings increasing pressure to reach an early settlement. Mustang concludes by stating that not only must funding be mutually beneficial to all parties, but its use must also be wanted by all parties and not imposed by either the client or counsel without mutual agreement and approval.
Commercial Deals

Funders and Law Firms Report Increasing Demand for Third-Party Litigation Financing

Over the last year we have seen many predictions that the litigation finance industry will benefit from the current economic uncertainty around the world, with rising inflation and supply chain issues putting a strain on corporate budgets in every sector. A new article suggests that these forecasts were broadly correct, as many funders are reporting an increase in the number of requests for funding. Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers this positive trend for litigation funding, featuring insights from several funders who are finding that potential clients are keen to explore third-party funding to move forward with meritorious litigation. Validity Finance co-founder, David Kerstein, stated that the funder generated its highest volume of leads last quarter, as companies find that it is increasingly difficult to borrow the capital they need from traditional sources.  The article notes that this growing trend is reflected in the actual number of funders now active in the US market, with the International Legal Finance Association now counting over 40 funders offering their services. It is not just funders who are recognizing the receptive environment, with Bob Bodian managing partner at Mintz Levin, reporting that his firm frequently takes advantage of third-party funding for its intellectual property litigation. Burford Capital’s co-chief operating officer, David Pela, highlighted that Burford is also seeing growing interest from law firms that do not regularly use contingency fees, stating that “they very often don’t want to take on the full risk, and that is where litigation finance companies come in.” The demand is not just coming from law firms, but also directly from their clients as these companies are “trying to find other sources of revenue and cut back costs”, according to Rebecca Berrebi, a litigation finance broker and consultant.
Announcements Consumer

KBRA Assigns Preliminary Ratings to US Claims LFS Securitization 2023-A

KBRA assigns preliminary ratings to three classes of notes issued by US Claims LFS Securitization, Series 2023-A (LFS 2023A), a litigation finance ABS. LFS 2023A represents the ninth ABS collateralized by litigation finance receivables to be sponsored by US Claims Holdings, LLC (US Claims or the Company). US Claims, originally established in 1996 and acquired in 2014 by Blackstone Tactical Opportunities as a subsidiary of Majestic Financial Holdings, LLC, is a leading provider of non-recourse advances to plaintiffs and attorneys with pending legal settlements across a variety of case types. Through its strategy of keeping “Litigation Funding Simplified”, the Company has funded over $800 million of litigation finance since 2010. The Company has 100 full-time employees across its headquarters in Delray Beach, FL and support offices in Clearwater, FL and Moorestown, NJ. LFS 2023A will issue three classes of notes (Notes). The Notes benefit from credit enhancement in the form of overcollateralization and, for the Class A and B notes, a cash reserve account and subordination. The portfolio securing the Notes has a net advance amount of approximately $126.01 million and an aggregate discounted projected receivable balance (ADPB) of approximately $164.99 million, including assumed prefunding, as of April 26, 2023 (Cutoff Date) based on the illustrative discount rate of 7.96%. The ADPB is the aggregate discounted collections associated with USC LFS 2023-A’s litigation receivables. The discount rate used to calculate the ADPB is a percentage equal to the sum of the weighted average anticipated interest rate on the Notes, the servicing fee rate of 0.50%, and an additional 0.10%. As of the Cutoff Date, the total net advances are made up primarily of plaintiff advances (97.97%) and pre-settlement advances (98.12%). The average advance to expected case settlement value is 13.53%. The transaction also features a $22.8 million prefunding account that is funded through the note issuance and may be used to purchase additional eligible receivables during the month after closing. To access ratings and relevant documents, click here. Click here to view the report.
Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

California Legislature’s Litigation Finance Bill On Hold Until 2024

As we have seen in recent weeks and months, there has been accelerated momentum behind state legislatures moving forward with legislation to govern and more heavily regulate the use of third-party litigation funding at the state level. However, in an unexpected turn of events, it appears that California’s proposed bill to impose stricter guidelines on litigation financing will not be moving forward this year. An article by The Recorder covers an announcement by California State Senator Anna Caballero that the advancement of SB 581, a bill which would have increased restrictions on the funding of consumer litigation, is now on hold until January 2024. According to the reporting, this decision was announced alongside numerous other bills as part of the Legislature’s ‘suspense file day’, when decisions are made as to the future progression of bills in the committee stage. Whilst Sen. Caballero’s announcement did not offer any explanation as to why the bill’s advancement had been stalled, it is notable that SB 581 had already seen its scope reduced from the initial draft text published in February. The revised bill announced in April had shed the mandatory disclosure requirements for third-party funding, and narrowed its scope to focus on lending to small-scale consumer litigation, rather than commercial litigation. With these changes made after significant criticism from the likes of ILFA and Consumer Attorneys of California, it is difficult to predict what the final version of SB 581 will look like, if it indeed moves forward in 2024. 
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Mastercard Class Action Representative Discusses State of Collective Redress 

The UK’s collective redress regime has received significant attention for its positive developments in recent years, and particularly for the involvement of litigation funders in supporting collective claims against large corporations. At a conference in London this week, the class representative for the high profile claim being brought against Mastercard spoke about the current state of class actions in the UK. Reporting by The Law Society Gazette highlights comments made by Walter Merricks, a former solicitor and financial ombudsman, at the London International Disputes Week event.  Speaking on a panel discussion about the future of collective redress in the UK, Merricks argued that defendants have an incentive to settle before trial under the current collective redress regime. He highlighted that in a settled claim, unclaimed damages may be returned to the defendant whilst unclaimed damages in a trial are distributed to charity, which he argues should incentivize defendants to look at settling ‘when the doors of the court loom.’  However, Merricks stated that those involved with collective claims are ‘all a little nervous’ at the moment, as they await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the DAF appeal, which could have a huge impact on the future of litigation funding in ongoing and future claims. Merricks also announced the formation of the Class Representatives Network, a new organization designed for class action representatives to come together and share their insights and experiences. 
Commercial Deals

An Analysis of Litigation Funding’s Potential Growth in Italy

As LFJ reported last week, we are seeing more and more evidence that litigation funding is becoming more widely adopted in Italy and is being put forward as a capital solution for a wide range of litigation across the public and private sector. A new article looks at the potential future for the litigation financing market in Italy, examining what sectors would benefit most from its adoption and how the market may be helped by legislative reforms. A blog post on HUB | Area Centro Meridionale’s LinkedIn, provides analysis on this topic by Daniela Saitta, president of LFAA (Litigation and Financing Arrangement Advisory) and Stefano Previti, managing partner of Studio Previti and founder of LFAA.  Saitta and Previti highlight bankruptcy proceedings as one of the biggest areas which could benefit from a growth in litigation funding in Italy, stating that there are around 100,000 ongoing insolvency proceedings in the country. They also point to litigation areas such as international arbitration, banking and finance disputes, and compensation claims as potential beneficiaries of third-party funding. Looking at the effect of legislative reforms that could pave the way for an increase in litigation finance usage, the authors highlight two decrees which reformed the civil process and worked to simplify judicial activity in order to increase efficiency and reduce case duration. Saitta and Previti point out that if these decrees are successful in reducing the duration of proceedings to match the standards in other European jurisdictions, cases in Italy may become more attractive to litigation funders.
Commercial Deals

Opportunities and Challenges for Litigation Funding in India

When discussing the future growth of litigation funding in new jurisdictions around the world, India is often highlighted as one of the most attractive opportunities, given the size of its economy and the associated scope of its litigation market. An article by Business Today provides an overview of the current state of litigation financing in India, with insights provided by industry leaders from different organizations involved in the sector. Ashish Chhawchharia, partner and head of restructuring services at Grant Thornton Bharat, points to the combination of rising legal costs and the huge volume of cases, as being a key driver for the industry’s growth in India.  To demonstrate the size of the potential market, the article includes data from the National Judicial Data Grid, which reveals that as of May 1, 2023, there are nearly 43.5 million pending cases throughout the Indian court system. With such a large volume of cases, new funders like FIGHTRIGHT Technologies are turning to analytics tools to help assess cases and perform the necessary due-diligence, with FIGHTRIGHT’s CEO Nitin Jain highlighting that by utilizing technology, they can make litigation funding ‘one of the least risky products’.  However, obstacles remain for litigation funding’s growth in India as Sumit Agrawal, founder of Regstreet Law Advisors, states that ‘the regulators are monitoring this trend closely to ensure that it is properly regulated and does not lead to any financial misconduct or illegal activities.’ Jain argues that increased regulation will be inevitable as the industry matures, and suggests that some degree of legislative standards will be beneficial, stating that ‘the more formal it becomes, the better it is for the industry.’
Case Developments Commercial

Woodsford-Funded Claimant Awarded £12.6 Million in Damages in Scottish Court

The harmonious relationship between a funder, a law firm and the claimant is at the center of the ongoing success of the litigation finance industry. However, as a recent judgement demonstrates, there are occasions where funders must support claimants who have been failed by their legal counsel, and as a result, lost out on a successful litigation outcome. In a post last week, Woodsford announced that a claimant it had funded, Centenary 6 Limited (C6), had been awarded £12.6 million in damages for the negligent behaviour of TLT Solicitors that led to C6 losing its prior case against Grant Thornton. Lord Ericht of the Scottish Outer House, Court of Session, ruled that TLT was at fault for its failure to provide C6 with adequate advice on ‘an order for caution for expenses’, which subsequently led to C6’s claim being dismissed. Commenting on the outcome of the case, Woodsford’s chief investment officer Charlie Morris stated: “This fantastic result has been a long time in the making. Woodsford started supporting C6 in this classic David v Goliath fight back in June 2017. On the one side, C6 with no meaningful assets, on the other a well-resourced law firm backed by deep-pocketed PI insurers. Despite having a meritorious claim (negligence was ultimately admitted), the defendant and its insurers dragged this out for far longer than they should have. They now have to pay the price for that. Woodsford is delighted to have been a part of this successful team.”
Announcements Commercial

Burford Capital Reports Full Year 2022 Financial Results

Burford Capital Limited ("Burford"), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces its audited financial results for the year ended December 31, 2022 ("FY22").1 The Burford Capital 2022 Annual Report, including financial statements (the "2022 Annual Report"), is available on the Burford Capital website at http://investors.burfordcapital.com. Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive Officer of Burford Capital, commented: "The pace of case progress in our portfolio quickened in 2022, resulting in a meaningful improvement in our financial results. Earnings per share more than doubled, driven by a 47% increase in total revenues, including 64% growth in capital provision income. Moreover, we deployed a record $457 million on a Burford-only basis into new capital provision-direct assets, historically our most profitable, and generated robust Burford-only cash receipts of $328 million. "Court activity has continued to work through the backlog caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and we are seeing a high level of portfolio activity in 2023, with 28 case milestones already having occurred and 61 more expected through the remainder of the year. "We believe our portfolio is at a turning point, with a potential increase in our realization rate as more of our capital provision assets resolve. We expect to continue to see strong demand for our capital from tighter financial conditions and an unfolding economic downturn. "We believe that our revised approach to determine the fair value of our capital provision assets under US GAAP represents a defining milestone in the evolution of the accounting for our asset class, and we expect it to become the industry standard. As we expected, the application of the revised fair value policy has resulted in a moderate increase in the carrying value of our capital provision assets." The full FY22 highlights can be found in Burford Capital’s press release here.
Read More
Case Developments Commercial

LCM Announces Settlement in Australian Class Action

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international alternative asset manager of disputes financing solutions, announces that a settlement (subject to court approval) has been reached in an Australian class action.  The class action was brought in the Federal Court of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of persons who are alleged to have suffered loss and damage as the result of the contamination of their land at seven sites in proximity to Department of Defence military bases.  The Commonwealth has agreed to pay the sum of AUD$132.7M in order to resolve the class action, prior to the commencement of a hearing in the case scheduled to begin on 15 May 2023, as documented in a Heads of Agreement that has been executed by the parties. All other terms of the settlement are confidential, and the settlement and LCM's fee are subject to court approval. The claim forms part of LCM's managed Global Alternative Returns Fund ("Fund I") and was funded directly from LCM's balance sheet (25%) and Fund I Investors (75%). LCM is presently unable to estimate the quantum of the likely revenue and profit that will be generated from this investment if the settlement is approved by the court, but will provide a further announcement in relation to this in due course. Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, said: "This settlement demonstrates LCM's experience in class actions in Australia. Producing an outcome for the parties without incurring the expense of a contested hearing, the settlement is a positive resolution both for LCM and for the class members, who have been able to utilise LCM's funding in order to achieve this result.  We are pleased to have been able to support class members in upholding both environmental and health protections."
Commercial

Montana Enacts New Legislation Regulating Third-Party Litigation Funding in the State

Calls for increased regulation of litigation financing have traditionally been aimed at national governments, with lobbying efforts focused on enacting nationwide changes to impose stricter oversight on the practice. However, the last few months have demonstrated that these efforts may be finding more success in individual states, as just last week, Montana became the latest state to enact new legislation regulating third-party litigation funding. Senate Bill 269, the ‘Litigation Financing Transparency and Consumer Protection Act’, was signed into law by Governor Grey Gianforte last week, and enforces several new requirements for the use of litigation funding for civil actions in Montana.  The most notable measure included in SB 269 is the mandatory disclosure of all litigation financing contracts. The bill states that ‘a consumer or the consumer's legal representative shall, without awaiting a discovery request, disclose and deliver’ the litigation financing contract to all parties involved in the litigation. This includes all parties and their legal representatives, courts or tribunals, and insurers “with a pre-existing contractual obligation to indemnify or defend a party to the civil action.” The legislation also prohibits anyone from acting as a litigation financier in Montana, unless they are formally registered with the secretary of state. Section 7 of the bill does provide a number of exemptions from the requirements; however, this primarily applies to non-profit or business entities that provide financing for a legal action without receiving ‘the payment of interest, fees, or other consideration’.
Commercial

Increased Use of Litigation Funding in Cross-Border M&A Disputes

Litigation funding continues to see wider acceptance and adoption by claimants in a wide variety of disputes, with funders bringing capital and expertise and experience in complex litigation to the table. Recent research by Dentons Canada has supported this and found that in the world of cross-border post-M&A disputes, litigation funding services are increasingly being retained by claimants and law firms. In a new video, Rachel Howie and Matthew Diskin of Dentons Canada discuss the firm’s latest survey which interviewed 150 senior executives involved in cross-border and global M&A transactions. The findings demonstrate that the use of third-party funding is on the rise, with 65% of respondents in the US & Canada stating they have engaged the services of a funder in the last 12 months. Speaking to the reasons for the uptick in the use of litigation funding, Diskin points to the rising costs of disputes and pressure on legal budgets, which allows funders to position themselves as a useful tool to share the risks and the financial burden when pursuing claims which are otherwise prohibitively expensive. Diskin also notes that the use of outside funding is even becoming more prevalent among companies with strong balance sheets and cash flows.  As for the benefits funders can provide outside of the actual financing, Diskin argues that funders are very attuned to spotting the issues that can arise in these claims, and that through their due diligence processes, funders can assess both the merits of the claim and the viability of any future recovery. Being able to assess whether there is a sound theory of the case and a suitable recovery plan allows all parties involved in these high-value disputes to significantly reduce their risk.
Case Developments Commercial

Piper Alderman and Omni Bridgeway File Class Action Against IG Markets Over CFD Products

Recent decades have seen an increase in the scope of retail investing, with advances in technology allowing individuals to trade increasingly complex investment products. However, failures by financial services firms to adequately protect consumers from the risks of this type of investing have prompted lawsuits against these same firms, as a new class action in Australia is once again demonstrating. Reporting in Lawyers Weekly details the launch of official proceedings in a class action brought on behalf of up to 20,000 Australian investors against IG Markets, over allegations that it marketed contracts for difference (CFDs) to investors without properly detailing the risks, and without proper assessment of these investors’ ability to undertake such trades. The class action was first announced in October of last year, and following months of investigations, proceedings have begun in the Victorian Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. The class action is led by Piper Alderman and is being funded by Omni Bridgeway, which revealed in a joint statement that they have already registered hundreds of individuals for the class action. Kate Sambrook, partner at Piper Alderman, stated that these CFDs “should never have been marketed to everyday Australian investors who had little or no experience in trading such complex products.” Justice Jonathan Beach of the Federal Court of Australia, has previously described these CFD products as “financial heroin hits”.
Announcements Commercial People Moves

Burford Capital Expands European Footprint

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces that it has expanded its European footprint while also continuing to add leading legal talent to its global operation. Expanded client demand for offerings such as corporate monetization and law firm portfolio financing, combined with a greater desire and need for legal finance in Europe due to legislative changes related to collective redress, have resulted in Burford’s continued growth. In Europe, Burford now has an on-the-ground presence in London, Frankfurt, Zug, Paris, Rome and Stockholm.

Changes to Burford’s European operation include:

  • Burford veterans Michael Redman and Daniel Hall now serve as co-heads of EMEA: Mr. Redman leads Burford’s London office, and as previously announced, Mr. Hall leads Burford’s new office in Dubai.
  • Philipp Leibfried has taken on the role of Head of Europe and will continue to implement Burford’s European growth strategy, actively engaging with law firms and companies across continental Europe.
  • Swiss-based Dr. Jörn Eschment has been promoted to Director and will continue to lead Burford’s business in the DACH region of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
  • Dr. Luca Weskott has joined Burford as a Vice President based in Frankfurt, Germany, and will originate and manage investments in the DACH region. He joins Burford from leading German law firm Hengeler Mueller’s Dispute Resolution practice.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “As the global industry leader, Burford is constantly evolving to meet our clients’ needs. We continue to add the best and brightest talent company-wide, because that’s the basis not only for growth but for developing strong and lasting client relationships. And I’m especially pleased that as we hire new global talent, we’re also promoting our existing talent into leadership positions.”

Philipp Leibfried, Burford Capital’s Head of Europe, said: “While Burford has always had a significant presence in both the UK and in Europe, with 47 staff now in London, we are also dedicating additional resources to Europe to match growing demand on the continent. From the UK to the DACH region, France, Italy, Sweden and more, we are committed to serving our clients. We look forward to meeting demand from European law firms in areas such as collective redress, securities claims and competition-related litigation, in addition to more award and judgment monetization work with our corporate clients.”

The composition of Burford’s global team as of May 11, 2023 of more than 150 employees – and more than 60 of whom are lawyers – reflects its category leadership as well as its commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, as half of Burford’s team are women, racial minorities or self-identify as LGBTQ+.

Since its last hiring announcement in November 2021, Burford has expanded its industry-leading global team, including the following senior employees:

Experienced leaders join as Treasurer and Chief Compliance Officer

  • Juan Jimenez, CFA, is Treasurer, based in New York, with responsibility for overseeing all activities and risks related to liquidity and cash management, funding, currency and interest rates, as well as managing relationships with rating agencies. Mr. Jimenez most recently worked as Director of Corporate Treasury at Colgate-Palmolive.
  • Monika Singh, IACCP®, is Chief Compliance Officer, based in Chicago, responsible for overseeing and managing Burford’s compliance with all applicable regulatory, internal policy and procedural requirements. Ms. Singh has over a decade of experience in compliance management. Prior to joining Burford, Ms. Singh was Chief Compliance Officer at 50 South Capital Advisors.

Additional growth of Burford’s industry-leading investment team

  • Christopher Dore is a Director in Chicago with responsibility for overseeing Burford’s underwriting of and investment activity in nationwide consolidated litigation and other complex commercial matters. Mr. Dore was previously Partner-in-Charge of case development, investigations and client acquisition at Edelson PC.
  • Charles Griffin is a Vice President in New York responsible for evaluating and executing new investment opportunities and overseeing investments in Burford’s portfolio. Prior to joining Burford, Mr. Griffin was a litigator at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
  • Victoria Fox is a Vice President in London focused on commercial litigation, asset recovery and enforcement. Prior to joining Burford, Ms. Fox was a litigator at Stephenson Harwood.
  • Charlie Rooke is a Vice President in London with a focus on complex commercial and competition litigation matters in the UK and Europe. Mr. Rooke was previously a Senior Counsel at the Royal Bank of Canada.

Business origination team adds top industry experts

  • Patrick Dempsey is a Director in New York responsible for originating new business with US law firms and companies. Mr. Dempsey was previously the US Chief Investment Officer and a Board Member at Therium Capital Management.
  • Jonathan Owen is a Vice President in California with responsibility for originating new business with US law firms and companies. Prior to joining Burford, Mr. Owen was a Funding Director at Law Finance Group.

Top global legal talent joins the business

  • Shreya Gulati is Corporate Counsel in New York with a focus on Burford’s investments in the U.S. Prior to joining Burford, Ms. Gulati was an Associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
  • Richard Lee is Corporate Counsel in London with responsibility for overseeing Burford’s investments in the UK, EMEA and Asia. Prior to joining Burford, Mr. Lee was a Managing Associate at Linklaters.
  • Anastasiya Lisovskaya is Corporate Counsel in New York responsible for the legal processes around Burford’s reporting obligations and compliance with securities laws. Ms. Lisovskaya was previously a Senior Corporate Associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
  • Richard McGarry is Counsel in London with responsibility for leading Burford’s compliance program in the UK, Europe and Asia-Pacific. Mr. McGarry was previously a Managing Associate in Addleshaw Goddard’s Global Investigations team.

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, Sydney, Hong Kong and Dubai.

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

Read More
Commercial Legal Innovation

Spear’s Names Top Litigation Funders for High-Net-Worth Individuals

Litigation funders are increasingly offering their services to a wider range of clients, providing capital and expertise to everyone from individuals to startup business and larger corporates. One market niche where funders can prove to be particularly impactful is in the realm of litigation services for high-net-worth (HNW) individuals, especially when it comes to divorce proceedings. A new index published by Spear’s, the wealth management and luxury lifestyle publication, provides a ranking of the top litigation funding professionals that provide services to HNW individuals. The list includes 15 individuals who are ranked as ‘Top Recommended’ by Spear’s, along with one individual who is listed as a ‘Rising Star’ in the field. These individuals are also sorted by their areas of focus, which includes categories such as family law funding, offshore finance, and matrimonial and private client.  The 15 Top Recommended individuals include senior executives from the following industry-leading funders: Burford Capital, Harbour Litigation Funding, Level, Rhea Family Finance, Schneider Financial Solutions, Therium and Woodsford. Max Austin-Little, director at Level, is identified as a Rising Star in litigation funding, having been highlighted for his expertise in ‘financial remedy proceedings as well as contentious private wealth and probate cases.’
Commercial Deals

Italian Funder LexCapital Signs Agreement with Association Representing Local Authorities

There has been a lot of discussion lately around the use of portfolio litigation funding, and the wider partnership between funders and clients to provide capital for a range of litigation activities. A new example of this approach has appeared in Europe, where a startup Italian funder has signed an agreement with a local association to provide funding for litigation on behalf of its partner institutions. The announcement shared on Legalcommunity.it provides the details on LexCapital’s new agreement with Asmel (Associazione per la Sussidiarietà e la Modernizzazione degli Enti Locali), an association focused on the modernization of local authorities in Italy. The agreement will allow Asmel’s 4,100 partnered institutions to cut costs by giving LexCapital the litigation rights for active disputes, with any financial awards being shared between the local municipality and the funder. Speaking to the benefits of this new partnership, LexCapital’s chief operating officer, Giuseppe Farchione, stated that by taking on the litigation costs, this agreement will allow the local authorities to focus their own resources more efficiently, and also benefit from LexCapital’s technical expertise in litigation. Francesco Pinto, general secretary of Asmel, said that this agreement represents an innovative formula and will provide financial assistance to its partners, whilst also hopefully increasing their rate of success in these lawsuits.
Commercial Legal Innovation

NuGenesis Seeks Litigation Funding for Claim Against FTX

NuGenesis (the purveyor of NuCoin), is reported to be exploring AI and litigation finance as investment tools in claims against  FTX and Alameda Research’s alleged fraud.  Cointelegraph characterizes NuGenesis as a well respected source for quality innovation in the digital asset ecosystem. After NuCoin was attacked by FTX, executives at NuGenesis began to employ AI technology to digest what could be happening behind the scenes at Alameda and the Japanese arm of FTX.  Touted as 'groundbreaking' by Cointelegraph, NuGenesis' crypto fraud detection software has been instrumental in uncovering alleged inconsistencies of fiduciary duty across FTX's global enterprise. NuCoin is said to have tallied almost $55B in potential damages associated with potential FTX scams against the token.  The FTX saga could yield new opportunities for litigation financiers in the crypto litigation space. As an added bonus, we have included 185 highlights to the Office of Legal Education's "Prosecuting Computer Crimes" handbook for reference. 
Commercial Deals

Spain Offers Opportunities for Litigation Funders as ‘Gateway to the Latin American Market’

Whilst the UK, US and Australia remain the most established markets for litigation funding, jurisdictions across Europe are shaping up to be increasingly valuable prospects for funders to pursue. In a new feature, one funder suggests that Spain has a bright future, not only through its domestic market, but also through its ties to the wider Latin American region. In an interview with Leaders League, Paloma Castro, senior legal counsel at Deminor, discusses the current state of litigation finance and the potential for Spain to become an increasingly active market for third-party funding. Castro points to the ongoing economic instability, rising inflation and low growth as key drivers for a global increase in the demand for litigation funding, as companies will be in need of outside capital to fund meritorious litigation. Looking at the Spanish market, Castro argues that the country has great potential to evolve into an attractive market for litigation funders, standing out as the fourth largest economy in the European Union. Beyond its economic clout, Castro also suggests that Spain benefits from ‘a robust legal system that guarantees legal certainty’, which could lower risk for interested funders.  Beyond its domestic market, Castro highlights Spain as ‘the gateway to the Latin American market’, which is another region that funders will be keen to explore given its predisposition to resolving disputes through arbitration.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Former MP Argues for Increased Regulation of Funders Involved in Collective Actions

Whilst the current collective action regime has been viewed as a net positive for law firms and litigation funders in the UK, there are outside observers who argue that the current system benefits these players more than the consumers and organizations represented in the legal actions. In a new article published in Conservative Home, the chief executive of Fair Civil Justice and former Member of Parliament (MP), Seema Kennedy, argues that the current collective actions regime has created an environment in which ‘law firms and litigation funders profit from consumers who have suffered harm.’ Kennedy argues that it is these two groups who have benefited most from the changes to collective actions following the Consumer Rights Act 2015, each seeking to maximize financial returns from these claims. Kennedy highlights the example of the Horizon IT claim, which saw former postmasters awarded a £43 million judgement, only for a significant share of this award to cover the legal fees and funding costs. Kennedy suggests that if the current system is allowed to continue, it will lead to the UK’s businesses suffering from what she describes as: the United States’ ‘aggressive profit-driven litigation culture’. To address the perceived imbalance in incentives, Kennedy recommends that the UK government consider mirroring other jurisdictions, such as the EU, which increases regulation around litigation funding. Kennedy argues that the current system of self-regulation under the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) is ineffective, and that without stricter regulation, the interests of funders will be placed ahead of those of consumers seeking access to justice in the first place.
Commercial Deals

Rising Legal Costs in India Drive Demand for Litigation Funding

As regulatory structures continue to evolve in jurisdictions around the world, global litigation funders are keeping a watchful eye on markets that could represent fruitful opportunities for new investments. One such market that has been gaining attention recently is India, which is now experiencing a burgeoning market of domestic funders expanding operations, as well as interest from international funders. A new article in Business Today highlights the growth of litigation finance within India, featuring commentary from Ashish Chhawachharia, a partner at Grant Thornton Bharat. Chhawachharia argues that there is ‘tremendous scope for growth [in] litigation funding in India’, fuelled by rising legal costs which are leaving both companies and individuals unable to pursue meritorious litigation without the support of third-party funding. This growing demand is good news for companies such as LegalPay, which has become one of the leading names for litigation funding in India. Chhawachharia also notes that whilst international funders may choose to work with Indian law firms on these opportunities, the growing presence of international law firms in the country will only contribute to the rise in funding activity. As for what kind of investors will be looking to achieve returns from litigation funding in India, Chhawachharia suggests that high-net-worth individuals and family offices ‘are likely to invest in funds which pool in investments with a similar thesis or objective, rather than invest directly in this market’. 
Commercial Legal Innovation

The Intersection of Litigation Funding and Litigation Risk Insurance

Litigation funding represents an important tool for litigants and law firms in providing the capital to pursue meritorious cases, as well as fundamentally rebalancing the levels of financial risk involved in the process. However, the benefits can be more powerfully realized when funding is paired with the smart use of litigation risk insurance. A recent Q&A hosted by Woodsford’s director of litigation finance and legal counsel, Bob Koneck, dives into the world of litigation risk insurance and discusses current market trends with Megan Easley, senior vice president at CAC Speciality. The discussion covers the wide variety of contingent risk insurances available to customers, from stop-loss policies to judgement preservation insurance, and the growing expansion of portfolio solutions. The booming litigation market has also seen a correlated growth for litigation risk insurance products, with CAC having ‘placed approximately $3Bn in limits in the contingent risk markets in just the last three years’. Speaking to the growth of these portfolio offerings, Easley highlights that they can be useful for a variety of clients, including litigation funders, which hold a diverse array of investments, and law firms who have multiple contingency fee interests. More so than insurance products offered for individual legal assets, these portfolio solutions are tailored and constructed to fit the bespoke needs of the client. Discussing the interactions between funders and insurers, Easley points out that funders can secure insurance to protect their own investments, and also can be involved via litigants and law firms by providing the capital needed to cover the premiums for insurance. Easley also addresses the similarities between the due diligence conducted by funders and insurers, adding that beyond internal approval, the insurer’s process also includes ‘a submission to insurance markets that have to engage with the risk, quote it, and ultimately issue policies’.
Announcements Consumer

Pre-Settlement Funding Firm Expects Johnson & Johnson Talcum Based Baby Powder Cases to Settle By Year’s End

Legal-Bay, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they expect a global settlement to be reached in the landmark Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder Talc cases. It will be one of the largest mass tort settlements in U.S. history, costing J&J over $10 billion to resolve over 100,000 claims.  Plaintiffs allege that J&J talc-based baby powder is directly responsible for causing their ovarian cancer, and point out that the company has long been aware of the health risks associated with their product. Several studies dating back to the 1970s concluded that talc particles increase a woman's chances of developing serious medical issues, and evidence suggests that J&J has been intentionally concealing the results for decades.  J&J has attempted to settle the cases via bankruptcy filing and a $9BB payout; however, plaintiffs' lawyers believe that this is woefully insufficient compensation for the damage their product has inflicted, leaving the average settlement amount at less than $200k per plaintiff. If you require an immediate cash advance from your anticipated Johnson & Johnson talc baby powder lawsuit settlement, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 Last week, Federal Judge Michael Kaplan put a hold on all trials as he examines Johnson & Johnson's second bankruptcy filing. Claimants are not only challenging J&J's strategy, but asking the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the pharmaceutical giant for improperly using the bankruptcy code. With the legal rhetoric now at a fever pitch, Judge Kaplan has requested the parties head to mediation to work out their differences. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, said, "Our sources close to the litigation have indicated that although a settlement is not imminent at this time; they believe decisive action toward a compromise could be taken by the end of this year. Typically, a fair transaction is when all parties walks away a little disappointed. Therefore, while we predict that J&J will come up on their nine-billion-dollar offer, it will still be well short of the settlement values plaintiffs feel they deserve for their devastating injuries." If you're a plaintiff in an active Johnson & Johnson talcum powder lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance from your anticipated settlement, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.  Legal-Bay reports that the average settlement value for a case at $9B would be less than $100K. If J&J were to raise their offer, these figures could push the awards closer to $200K per average case, which would be a rather large award considering that 100K total claims are expected to be filed. Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit loan companies when it comes to mass tort litigations, and is currently the #1 talc funding company in the industry. Legal-Bay is also funding Round Up cases, Essure, Juul e-Cigarettes, Hernia Mesh, IVC Filters, and Exactech hip and knee recall cases. Legal-Bay assists plaintiffs in all other types of lawsuits, including personal injury, slips and falls, car, boat, or construction accidents, medical malpractice, dog bites, police brutality, sexual assault, judgment or verdict on appeal, commercial litigation, contract dispute, Qui-tam or whistleblower cases, False Claims Act, patent litigation, copyright infringement, and more. Their lawsuit funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse law suit loans—sometimes referred to as loans for lawsuit or loans on settlement—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit loan isn't really a loan, but rather a cash advance. To apply, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are available to answer your questions.
Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Analyzing EU Regulatory Reforms Against the Australian and British Systems

Following last year’s release of the Voss Report and its recommendations for further regulation of litigation funding within the European Union, there has been much discussion over the individual proposals within the report. However, it is also worthwhile to look at the proposed reforms through a comparative lens and see how their impact could mirror or differ from regulatory structures in other key markets for litigation funding. A new piece of analysis from Chris Martin of Augusta Ventures looks at the future of litigation funding regulation in the EU, comparing the potential outcomes against the existing regimes in Australia and the UK.  Martin highlights the recent developments in Australia, where the government has rolled back certain pieces of regulation to ensure that litigation funders are able to facilitate access to justice. However, Martin points out that Australia’s previous regulatory regime created an environment in which certain cases, ‘particularly class actions against large and well capitalized corporate wrongdoers’, were no longer viable investment opportunities for smaller funders.  The analysis contrasts this stricter approach with the more ‘self-regulating’ model that exists in the UK, where the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) provides an industry body that can set standards that ensure there is a competitive market and level playing field. Martin argues that the ALF’s code of conduct tackles the same issues that the EU is trying to solve through regulation, including issues such as ‘control of case strategy, approval of settlements and withdrawal from cases’. Martin concludes by suggesting that the EU should not ignore the potential for increased regulation to ‘end up limiting funding options for litigants’, by increasing barriers to entry and driving up existing funder prices.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Trial Attorney Says Litigation Funding as a National Security Risk is a Myth

As LFJ reported earlier this week, the calls for tighter regulation of litigation funding in the US based on the claim that it threatens national security have continued to grow from politicians, corporations and lobbying groups around the country. However, litigation professionals are speaking out to critique these claims and suggesting that these arguments are simply being made to protect those threatened by litigation, rather than out of a genuine fear about foreign entities exploiting the US judicial system. In an op-ed for Bloomberg Law, Adam Mortara, a trial attorney and former clerk to the US Supreme Court, argues that this supposed risk to national security is vastly exaggerated. Mortara emphasises that despite the Chamber of Commerce’s repeated claims that this is a genuine threat, it has failed to ‘address how confidential information is protected in discovery’, nor has it provided any ‘any actual examples of litigation funders (foreign or domestic) gaining access to sensitive corporate secrets.’ Mortara highlights that Federal Rules already protect defendants from ‘unwarranted disclosure through the issuance of a protective order’, which can also be extended to include an “attorney’s eyes only” provision. Mortara goes on to state that he has never seen a situation in which a litigation funder was allowed access to such protected and confidential information, neither intentionally nor through accidental leaks.  Mortara concludes his argument with a harsh rebuttal of the Chamber of Commerce’s attacks: “Corporations might not like litigation funding because they generally don’t need it and get sued by the people who use it. Fine. But litigation funding isn’t a national security risk.”
Commercial Regulatory Issues

SEC Approves Mandatory Disclosure of Litigation Funding by Private Equity Firms

Whilst the involvement of major industry-leading litigation funders is widely publicized, outside of these household names are a wide range of investment firms that are keen to take part in a sector which promises lucrative returns for those willing to accept the high levels of risk. A new ruling from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) means that whilst private equity firms may still not publicly discuss these investments, they will now be required to privately disclose their litigation finance activities. Reporting by Bloomberg Law details the results of a vote by the SEC earlier this week, which approved new rules governing required disclosures by private equity firms. These companies had previously been able to avoid making disclosures about litigation finance investments, but will now be required to privately report to the SEC ‘the percentage of their capital targeted for use by law firms as part of an investment strategy’. The article also covers additional plans to increase reporting of litigation funding activity by private funds, as the SEC is working to finalize rules that would also require hedge funds to confidentially disclose the proportion of litigation finance in the total value of their assets. The current plans would see hedge funds make this disclosure using a net asset value calculation, and would allow them to report using the percentage of the firm’s capital that is allocated to litigation funding.
Consumer

California Litigation Funding Bill Drops Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

Attempts to regulate litigation funding and provide additional oversight into the practice have been gaining momentum, not only on a national level in several countries, but also by individual state legislatures in the United States. As LFJ reported in March, one such attempt has begun in California where State Senator Anna M. Caballero introduced the Predatory Lawsuit Lending Prevention Act, SB 581. However, a new development suggests that the scope of this bill will be significantly reduced if it does become state law. Reporting in Bloomberg Law highlights the news that a new version of SB 581, which was unveiled last week, had removed the requirement for mandatory disclosure of third-party funding in all cases. The latest draft of the bill has softened these requirements, by only requiring disclosure where it is ordered by a judge in situations where they believe the funding violates state law. Additionally, these disclosures will also be permitted to be made in private to the court, rather than disclosed publicly. Senator Caballero also clarified that the types of funding arrangements included in the bill’s oversight has been narrowed ‘to the situations where the plaintiff needs some kind of financial support in order to get them through the litigation process.’ As a result, Caballero stated the new law would provide an exemption for ‘business-to-business kinds of transactions that help attorneys pay for the litigation costs’. Groups who have been lobbying in favour of amendments to the bill included Consumer Attorneys of California, whose legislative director Nancy Peverini, described the changes as ‘a big victory’. Consumer Attorneys of California has been working with industry associations including the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding and the American Legal Finance Association, to lobby for appropriate changes to the bill. ILFA’s executive director, Gary Barnett, stated that a key concern around the bill’s scope was ensuring that it ‘does not conflate the consumer litigation funding industry and the separate and distinct commercial legal finance industry’.