Litigation Capital Management has released its Interim results for the half year ended 31 December 2022. Highlights

• Fund II Capital commitment at A$79m as at 31 December 2022 and A$114m as at 28 February 2023. Fund I fully committed
• Assets under Management (AuM) increased to A$506m by 31 December 2022 with further commitments in Fund II bringing our AuM to A$537m at 28 February 2023
• Overall Capital commitments were up significantly on the same prior year period at A$107m
• 162 applications reviewed, made up of better quality, larger and more complex cases, with expectations of enhanced returns from these cases
• Capital invested during the period increased from A$31.5m to A$56.9m
• Total revenue A$3.0m with a further A$22.5m recognised post the period end
• Adjusted loss for the period A$5.5m reflecting conservative revenue recognition. Post balance sheet resolutions would have increased LCM only performance to an adjusted operating profit of A$6.3m

Post period events and outlook

• Post Year End first successful settlement from a Fund I co-investment, generating ROIC of 278% for LCM’s balance sheet contribution and expected to contribute A$6.3m to gross profit
• Post Year End successful settlement on one of LCM's 100% direct balance sheet investments which was an Australian class action contributing approximately A$5.8m to gross profit

(Capital commitment means the total estimated budget of an investment) Commenting on the results, Patrick Moloney, CEO of Litigation Capital Management, said: “I am pleased we have continued to make progress on our Fund Management business, which has the potential to bring superior returns to LCM, as demonstrated by the first successful settlement from a Fund I investment, producing favourable outcomes both for the Fund and our balance sheet.” “Building on the increased levels of commitments in the period, we expect more investment opportunities to present themselves, in part due to the counter cyclical nature of our business, and as moratoriums against insolvency and restructuring disputes are relaxed. Our track record shows we are well positioned to capitalise on these opportunities, wherever they present themselves in the world.” LCM will be hosting a webinar for investors today at 11.00 a.m. The presentation is open to all existing and potential shareholders. If you would like to attend this presentation, please register using the following link: https://www.investormeetcompany.com/litigation-capital-management-limited/register-investor  A webinar presentation for analysts will take place at 9.00am. Analysts wishing to attend should contact: lcm@tavistock.co.uk to register. The accompanying results presentation is available on LCM's website: https://www.lcmfinance.com/shareholders/investor-presentations-results/  The Interim Financial Report is available at: https://www.lcmfinance.com/shareholders/annual-reports-financial-reports/

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced that Contingency Capital has joined the organization as its 20th member.  “As the only global association representing the commercial legal finance industry, ILFA is excited to welcome Contingency Capital as the organization’s 20th member,” said Gary Barnett, ILFA’s Executive Director. “The addition of Contingency Capital serves as a landmark moment for the growth of ILFA as an organization, as well as the commercial legal finance industry at-large.”  “Contingency Capital’s investment strategy leverages our litigation expertise to build diversified pools of legal assets,” said Brandon Baer, Founder and Chief Investment Officer at Contingency Capital. “As the asset class attracts increased interest from institutional investors, we look forward to working alongside our fellow members to build a broader understanding of the legal finance industry,” said Baer.  Since ILFA’s inception in 2020, the association has grown from six to 20 members, representing the world’s leading providers of commercial legal finance. During this time, ILFA has established itself as the undisputed global voice of the legal finance industry, by lending its voice to major legislative and regulatory debates in a variety of jurisdictions and relevant bodies, including in Europe, Australia, the U.S. and international arbitration institutions. Further, the association hosted its inaugural International Legal Finance Conference at the historic Morgan Library in New York City, with plans to hold additional events throughout the world this year.  About 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 is incorporated in Washington, DC, and has local chapter representation around the world. For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on Twitter @ILFA_Official and LinkedIn.  About Contingency Capital  Contingency Capital is a global asset management business focused on credit-oriented legal assets. For further information on Contingency Capital please see www.contingencycapital.com.

The following article was contributed by Lionel Martin (Partner, August Debouzy), Pierre-Olivier Ally (Counsel, August Debouzy), Ben Quarmby (Partner, MoloLamken LLP) and Jonathan E. Barbee (Counsel, MoloLamken LLP).  Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) is on the cusp of launch, confirmed for this June 1, 2023.  It has been eagerly anticipated by the patent litigation community across the member states—starting with 17 European countries, but expected to extend rapidly to all of Europe minus Poland, Spain, Croatia, and, most notably, the UK. The UPC has been long in the making: over ten years have passed since the agreement was first signed.  What is to be expected of this new court, and what opportunities does it present for litigation funders? Uniformity and Scale.  The principal goal of the UPC is to offer a single, consistent, and coherent court system in Europe for the litigation of patents.  Historically, procedural differences in the member states’ national patent and court systems meant that the timeline of patent litigation could vary wildly from one jurisdiction to the next.  The jurisdictions also differed on substance: infringement, validity, and injunctive relief rulings were not consistently applied across the board.  And the one way in which the national jurisdictions were similar—comparatively low damages models—acted as further disincentive for patent owners looking to enforce their rights. The UPC promises to overhaul that system entirely.  It is expected to issue speedy judgments on both infringement and validity.  It should set the scene for damages verdicts that are not only more consistent across jurisdictions, but also generally much greater in size—as one would expect for verdicts covering at least 17 member states.  And it promises greater accessibility and uniformity insofar as English will be the preeminent language of infringement proceedings in any matter involving allegations of infringement extending beyond a single member state. The UPC must now live up to that promise, and there is some uncertainty as to how the system will play out in its early stages.  Will the court be able to keep up the expected pace?   What standards will the court rely on when imposing preliminary injunctions?  How will damages awards be limited or expanded?  How will the appellate process work?  How will early litigants help shape the law and jurisprudence of the UPC? Those questions and many more will have to be answered in the coming months and years.  But if the UPC delivers on even part of its promised mandate, it may represent an exciting new arena for litigation funders working with patent owners to enforce their rights.  Indeed, there is reason to believe that the court will strive to be patentee-friendly—at least at the outset—in order to attract its “customers”. Opportunities for Litigation Funding.  Many of the key features of the UPC as currently contemplated, align neatly with the incentives and priorities of litigation funders and patent owners.

• Broader Geographic Reach. The UPC makes multi-jurisdictional patent campaigns cost-effective and efficient by allowing plaintiffs to target infringement across at least seventeen countries in one court proceeding.  Plaintiffs no longer need to pick and choose the countries in which to enforce their patents.  The reach of the UPC is likely to expand further: the UPC is expected to be integrated into European mutual recognition mechanisms that will allow the UPC’s jurisdiction to extend not only to the EU but also to Switzerland, Norway, and the UK.  While these mutual recognition mechanisms have long existed, national courts have historically been reluctant to rely on them.  The UPC, by contrast, is expected to do so much more regularly.
• Reduced Transaction Costs. Reliance on a single proceeding across multiple countries will cut down on the costs of litigating in multiple European countries in parallel.  The UPC will therefore dramatically reduce the resources necessary to launch and maintain a multi-jurisdictional campaign in the EU.  The UPC will also cut down on the logistics and transactional costs associated with such campaigns.  A plaintiff, for example, no longer needs to hire three separate teams to enforce patents in, for instance, France, Germany, and Italy, and pay additional fees for those three teams to coordinate to ensure coherence across jurisdictions.
• Short Time to Trial. UPC proceedings will expedite the pace of patent campaigns.  Some commentators suggest that proceedings will only take 12-15 months from complaint to final ruling—a significant boon for patent owners looking to promptly and efficiently enforce their rights.  If this holds true, and if sustainable, this pace would rival the speed of some of the fastest dockets among U.S. district courts.
• Efficient Evidence Gathering Procedures. Unlike the U.S., there is no formal discovery in the UPC, which significantly reduces litigation costs and can expedite proceedings.  But the UPC offers several key features that will be of value to patent owners: (i) plaintiffs may move to seize evidence of infringement from a defendant’s premises, and (ii) they may obtain court orders to force defendants to produce documents.
• Larger Damages Awards. Since UPC judgments will cover more countries and consumers, the potential damages awards should be considerably larger than they would be in a single jurisdiction.  This should help drive up the value of settlements, and put more pressure on defendants to settle earlier.  It also radically tips the scale on the economics of patent litigation funding in the EU.  Suddenly, the EU becomes an attractive venue in-and-of-itself for funders—not just an ancillary venue in support of higher-stakes U.S. litigation.
• Broad Injunctive Relief. The UPC will allow patent holders to seek injunctive relief across multiple countries in one shot.  This too should help drive bigger and earlier settlements—a boon for funders looking for a rapid return on their investment. 
• High-Quality Decisions. It is expected that the Court will render first-rate decisions for two principal reasons: (i) it has attracted seasoned IP judges from across Europe, and (ii) the judges consist of a mix of legally and technically qualified judges.  Furthermore, due to the high specialization of the Court, the number of judges will be quite limited (<100), which may help contribute to greater respect for precedent from fellow judges, which in turn leads to greater predictability for litigants.

Will the UPC be able to deliver on all of these fronts?  Only time will tell.  But for a savvy funder looking for an early mover advantage in a relatively underdeveloped market, and with the opportunity to potentially help shape early UPC jurisprudence in ways that will benefit patent owners for years to come, these are exciting times indeed . . . .

American litigation boutique Invenio LLP and emerging global legal consultancy Biztech Lawyers today announced the launch of their cross-border partnership that will now provide an even broader range of legal and strategic business advice to clients who are facing moments of emergence, crisis, or transformation, either as an organization or in navigating new asset classes or markets. With this partnership, current and future clients alike will be able to leverage Invenio LLP's legal and advisory work in complex dispute resolution, litigation finance, and alternative assets  – just as Biztech Lawyers' expertise in international business, technology transactions, and aviation issues will drive these key broader capabilities. This partnership offers clients nimble and highly experienced teams that are rate-sensitive and can operate globally from operational bases throughout the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The alliance creates a 'firm of General Counsels' in that it features founders who have each served as highly-regarded General Counsel of leading companies. Invenio leader Ed Gehres held the role for Miami-based investment platform 777 Partners, while counterpart Blake Trueblood served as General Counsel of litigation finance companies Justice Funds and Signal Funding. Meanwhile, Biztech Lawyers Co-Founders Anthony Bekker and Chris Spillman held the same roles at Australian-based technology unicorn Rokt and buy-now pay-later leader QuadPay. Together, the founders now offer clients the benefits of dozens of years of collective experience as advocates and business leaders in some of the most dynamic high growth industries and emerging asset classes.  The announcement also comes on the heels of Biztech's expansion into the United Kingdom, and the partnership will enable both firms to leverage each other's strengths. "We are excited to partner with Biztech Lawyers," Ed Gehres, Managing Partner of Invenio LLP, said. "Their international network and bench strength in the USA, UK, and Australia will be a valuable asset for our clients, and we look forward to working together to provide them with the best possible legal services. Indeed, we believe this alliance will be one of a small handful of legal advisors to offer litigation finance transactional capabilities in the major markets of the US, UK, and Australia." "Ed Gehres and Blake Trueblood are highly respected operators with a long history of success across an array of legal service categories," said Chris Spillman, Managing Director, Americas of Biztech Lawyers. "Their expertise in counseling growth companies in plaintiff-side litigation and litigation defense will be a huge asset for our clients when they need it most, and we look forward to working together to provide our mutual clients with the best possible legal services." The partnership between Invenio and Biztech Lawyers is expected to be a long-term and mutually beneficial one. The firms will work closely together to ensure that their clients receive the best possible legal services, and they will continue to explore opportunities for growth and expansion in the future.

The following article was contributed by Valerie Blacker, a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation, and John Speer, a lawyer in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation Team at Piper Alderman. While large class actions receive the lion’s share of media attention, litigation financiers also regularly fund litigation involving a single plaintiff. Given that solicitors are required to maintain professional indemnity insurance, they can be, in instances of negligence, an attractive prospect for financiers: they are well-resourced and have the capacity to satisfy any judgment awarded against them. The Brisbane Litigation team at Piper Alderman have brought successful professional negligence claims against our clients’ former solicitors involving both funded and unfunded arrangements.[1] This article discusses a common defense raised in these types of proceedings – the advocates’ immunity. The immunity in brief In Australia, the advocacy function is immune from a negligence claim.  The immunity applies to a lawyer’s work in the court room. The immunity is rooted in the public policy principle that there should be finality in litigation. It prevents unsuccessful parties from seeking to re-litigate disputes by way of a collateral attack on their lawyers’ performance in court. A barrister mainly appears in court, and a solicitor mainly performs legal work outside of court.[2] But why does it matter? If a lawyer has been negligent, shouldn’t the client be able to seek relief? Apparently not – in some jurisdictions. Despite having been abolished in the United Kingdom and even in New Zealand, advocates’ immunity remains firmly in place in Australia. Indeed, there were at least eighteen court actions in 2022 that have made reference to the immunity as a defense. Avenues for redress The immunity is often called upon by solicitors performing ‘out-of-court’ work, but which (so the argument goes) is so ‘intimately connected to the conduct of the case in court’. In two recent examples, the immunity applied to shield a solicitor for failing to present evidence that should have been presented (Golden v Koffel [2022] NSWCA 8), and was extended to protect a solicitor who had given faulty advice (Jimenez v Watson [2021] NSWCA 55). If a solicitor’s negligent work was actually done in court in the course of a hearing or was done out of court but which led to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court, the alternative options for an aggrieved client are frankly inadequate. For example, (1) an unsuccessful party may apply for an order that his or her solicitor be made personally liable for the successful party’s costs in the litigation; (2) an aggrieved client can challenge a solicitor’s bills through an application to the court for a costs assessment; and (3) disciplinary action can be taken which can result in a fine, a reprimand or in a solicitor being disqualified from practice. At best these alternative options may reduce a client’s costs but none of them will truly compensate a client for the wrongs caused by a lousy solicitor. Narrowing the scope of the immunity In a more positive move, the Courts have now made it clear that the immunity does not extend to a solicitor’s work in bringing about a settlement agreement (as an agreement between parties to settle is not an exercise of judicial power).[3] It is also now possible to be compensated for the expense of engaging new lawyers.[4] NT Pubco Pty Ltd v Strazdins is also notable. The Court there held that a failure to advise clients to seek independent legal advice was held to be likely outside the immunity.[5] The relevant wrong in that case concerned a failure by solicitors to relay to their client comments made by the court at several interlocutory hearings that the client should have been pursuing a particular kind of relief in its litigation. That would be akin to failing to commence proceedings in time. That too should fall outside of the immunity as the aggrieved client’s cause of action was complete and whole before the proceedings were started and the negligent conduct was completely separate from the litigation. The primary justification for retaining the advocates’ immunity is to ensure the finality of judicial determinations. However, if a client brings a negligence suit against a former solicitor is that not also a separate proceeding that deals with a different issue? As Kirby J warned, upholding the immunity not only reduces equality before the courts, but is capable of breeding contempt for the law. His Honour questioned ‘why an anomalous immunity is not only preserved in Australia but now actually enlarged by a binding legal rule that will include out-of-court advice and extend to protect solicitors as well as barristers’.[6] In these circumstances, can the reasons traditionally given for the immunity still persuade, particularly when the rest of common law world has abolished it? At the risk of offending the doctrine and re-litigating this issue, perhaps we should continue the debate. About the Authors: Valerie Blacker is a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation. Valerie has been with Piper Alderman for over 12 years. With a background in class actions, Valerie also prosecutes funded commercial litigation claims. John Speer is a lawyer in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation Team located in Brisbane, Prior to joining Piper Alderman John was an associate to the Honourable Justice B J Collier in the Federal Court of Australia, as well as to Deputy President B J McCabe in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. John has also worked as a ministerial adviser and chief of staff in the Parliament of Australia.   For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact John Speer | T: +61 7 3220 7765 | E:  jspeer@piperalderman.com.au [1] These matters resulted in a confidential settlement. [2] New South Wales and Queensland have a ‘split’ profession, meaning that the roles of barrister and solicitor are separated. [3] Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1,  [5], [38], [39], [45], [46], [53]. [4] Legal Services Commissioner v Rowell [2013] QCAT OCR207-12. [5] [2014] NTSC 8 at [134] and [137]. [6] D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1, 109 [346].