John Freund's Posts

3077 Articles

European Law Institute Publishes Report on Principles Governing the Third Party Funding of Litigation

By Harry Moran |

Whilst legislatures in both the UK and US are in the process of weighing the best path forward for the state’s role in the regulation of litigation funding, one non-profit organisation has produced a report offering its own framework and guiding principles for the European legal funding market.

A new post from the European Law Institute (ELI) announced the publishing of its Principles Governing the Third Party Funding of Litigation (TPFL), which the non-profit says are “intended to constitute a blueprint for guidance, decisions or light-touch regulation of the burgeoning Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) market.” The 103-page draft report is designed to provided principles that will “enhance transparency, fairness, and accessibility in litigation funding”, with ELI stating that it “encourages jurisdictions to incorporate these principles” as a flexible framework for the third-party funding market.

The report was co-authored by Dame Sara Cockerill, Judge of the High Court of England and Wales, and Prof Dr Susanne Augenhofer from the Universität Innsbruck. The report also acknowledges contributions from its advisory and consultative committees, which included leading figures from European law firms, litigation funders, and law schools.

The report considers both the benefits that the industry promotes such as access to justice, whilst also weighing the concerns of those who are more critical of the current state of third party litigation funding so that “a balance can be struck between access to justice and the public interest in the due administration of justice.” The report includes 12 key principles for the “conduct of funders and funded parties”, which cover a range of issues including transparency, capital adequacy of funders, and control over proceedings.

ELI’s report also lays out additional resources such as “a suggested minimum content of TPLF agreements”, as well as exploring more nuanced situations involving outside funding such as arbitration and insolvency proceedings.

The full draft of ELI’s report can be found here

According to the announcement, an edited version of the report with an enhanced layout will be published on ELI’s website soon, with a series of webinars covering the findings of the report to follow.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Andi Mandell, Partner and Co-Head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group

By John Freund |

Andi Mandell is a partner and co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group, where she advises on the tax aspects relating to structured finance, securitization and fund formation. Her practice is focused on esoteric assets, including litigation funding, structured settlements, lottery receivables, secured and unsecured consumer loans and timeshare loans.

Andi has over 30 years of experience providing skilled tax advice to the securitization industry. In addition to her work in the esoteric space, Andi is recognized as an authority in the securitization of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities and real estate structured finance, including the structuring of REO-to-rental financings, servicer advance facilities, debt re-packaging, securitization of non-performing and re-performing mortgage loans, re-securitizations, distressed asset funds and MSR purchases and sales.

Andi works with other industry leaders who are shaping the securitization industry as a member of the Board of Directors of the Structured Finance Association (SFA), and is serving her fifth year as the co-chair of the Tax Policy Committee.

Company Name and Description: With a firm focus on private capital, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is comprised of legal advisers and commercial problem-solvers who combine exceptional experience, industry insight, integrated intelligence and commercial creativity to help clients raise and invest assets and protect and expand their businesses. The firm has offices in New York, Washington, DC and London, and advises clients on investment management, corporate and transactional matters, and provides counsel on securities regulatory compliance, enforcement and investigative issues.    

Company Website: https://www.srz.com/

Year Founded: 1969  

Headquarters: New York, New York, U.S.A.  

Area of Focus: Tax, Finance, Structured Finance  

Member Quote: "Navigating the intricacies of litigation funding requires a deep understanding of both the financial and the legal landscape. As a tax lawyer, my role is to ensure that funding arrangements are properly structured to allow a broad range of investors to participate as funders in this asset class in a tax efficient manner. Litigation funding presents unique tax challenges to non-US investors and tax exempts and having the tax expertise to help guide our clients allows for greater participation in this space.”

Read More

EvenUp Raises $135M in Series D Funding and Launches New Products to Help Level the Playing Field in Personal Injury Cases

By Harry Moran |

Today, EvenUp, the market leader in personal injury AI and document generation, announced it has raised a $135 million Series D round of funding and significantly expanded its AI workflow and product suite. The round was led by Bain Capital Ventures, with participation from Premji Invest, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Bessemer Venture Partners, SignalFire, and B Capital Group. This brings the company's total funding to $235 million, with $220 million raised over the last 18 months. One of the largest funding rounds in legal AI history, it puts EvenUp's valuation at over $1 billion.

"At EvenUp, our mission is to close the justice gap through the power of technology and AI," said Rami Karabibar, CEO and co-founder of EvenUp. "We empower personal injury firms to deliver higher standards of representation, with the goal of ultimately helping the 20 million injury victims in the U.S. achieve fairer outcomes each year. With our latest products, funding, and proprietary data, we're now better equipped to serve our customers. We're also excited to continue investing in our talent, expanding our world-class leadership team with recent executive leaders from public companies."

Over 1,000 law firms use EvenUp, which has helped them claim over $1.5 billion in damages. EvenUp has flagged $200 million in missing documents, leading to settlement increases of up to 30% – putting more money back in plaintiffs' pockets faster. Based on internal data analysis, EvenUp's flagship product, Demands, is 69% more likely than non-EvenUp demand letters to achieve a policy limit settlement.

EvenUp's all-in-one Claims Intelligence Platform™ is powered by its AI model known as Piai™, which is trained on hundreds of thousands of injury cases, millions of medical records and visits, and internal legal expertise. The company's new suite of products span across the personal injury case lifecycle and include:

Equip case managers and attorneys with the tools for successful representation 

  • Case Preparation: Law firm staff manage large volumes of cases and engage in painstaking document review tasks. Despite this, an alarming rate of claims are submitted with missing supporting documents. Case Preparation is the first product of its kind to proactively help case managers make the best decisions across the lifecycle of their cases, including identifying missing documents early and simplifying the review of records, improving the quality of case preparation, and reducing time to settlement.
  • Negotiation Preparation: Negotiation Preparation helps injury professionals ensure they're never caught off guard in negotiations with insights on strengths, weaknesses, and key facts. Attorneys are then empowered with Case Companion, a state-of-the-art AI case assistant for real-time answers to complex questions, to quickly navigate their documents and return sourced-based answers.

Enable firms to reach new levels of performance

  • Executive Analytics: Executive Analytics makes rich insights and powerful benchmarks from EvenUp's proprietary dataset easily accessible. AI insights across key case metrics like treatment continuity, demand delays, and more ensure executives have the data they need at their fingertips to unlock new best-in-class performance.

Equip attorneys with new visibility into their historical settlements

  • Settlement Repository: With over 95% of cases settled privately, firms have lacked clean internal data to evaluate potential offers or inform negotiations on behalf of their clients. Settlement Repository solves this challenge.

EvenUp's engineering and product teams, which span 100+ people, have shipped 50+ releases this year alone. Twenty percent of its customers are already multi-product users, and EvenUp drafts 1,000+ documents per week for its customers, positioning EvenUp as the largest AI-document drafting platform in the U.S. Revenue has grown over 100% year-over-year, and EvenUp has also more than doubled its workforce in the U.S. and Canada in the past 12 months.

"Everyone is looking for ways that Gen AI can help people in the real world, and EvenUp's multi-product approach is the perfect example of that," said Aaref Hilaly, partner at Bain Capital Ventures. "The work Rami and his team are doing in the legal technology space is unmatched, especially given the quality of data they provide to customers and their new workflow products. We are excited to double down and invest again in EvenUp as they embark on this new chapter."

"We are beyond excited to partner with EvenUp, which is streamlining the day-to-day tasks of attorneys and case managers. The product velocity here is like no other – EvenUp will soon serve as the singular technology platform addressing nearly every pain point personal injury attorneys face," said Sandesh Patnam, Managing Partner at Premji Invest.

"EvenUp's powerful insights have reshaped how we make decisions," said Steve Mehr, founder & partner at Sweet James. "Access to this type of business intelligence solidifies our position as the market leader. Their platform enables us to stay ahead of the competition while scaling with precision and confidence."

"With first-of-its-kind transparency into case settlement outcomes, EvenUp truly lives up to its name by empowering advocates with accurate data, ensuring injured victims receive fair and full compensation," said Bob Simon, co-founder of The Simon Law Group.

Find out more about EvenUp's new products here: https://www.evenuplaw.com/

About EvenUp

EvenUp is on a mission to level the playing field in personal injury cases. EvenUp applies machine learning and its AI model known as Piai™ to reduce manual effort and maximize case outcomes across the personal injury value chain. Combining in-house human legal expertise with proprietary AI and software to analyze records. The Claims Intelligence Platform™ provides rich business insights, AI workflow automation, and best-in-class document creation for injury law firms. EvenUp is the trusted partner of personal injury law firms. Backed by top VCs, including Bessemer Venture Partners, Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), SignalFire, NFX, DCM, and more, EvenUp's customers range from top trial attorneys to America's largest personal injury firms. EvenUp was founded in late 2019 and is headquartered in San Francisco. Learn more at www.evenuplaw.com.

About Bain Capital VenturesBain Capital Ventures (BCV) is a multi-stage VC firm with over $10B under management investing across seven core domains—AI applications, AI infrastructure, commerce, fintech, healthcare, industrials and security. Leveraging the unique resources of Bain Capital, BCV deploys targeted support at every stage of the company-building journey. For over 20 years, BCV has helped launch and commercialize more than 400 companies including Attentive, Apollo.io, Bloomreach, Clari, Docusign, Flywire, LinkedIn, Moveworks, Redis and ShipBob. For more information, visit www.baincapitalventures.com.

Read More

Renovus Capital Partners Announces Majority Investment in Angeion Group

By Harry Moran |

Renovus Capital Partners ("Renovus"), a private equity firm based in the Philadelphia area, announced today that it has acquired a majority stake in class action case management solutions provider Angeion Group, LLC ("Angeion"). Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Steven Weisbrot, and senior members of the management team have maintained a significant ownership stake in the Company and will continue to drive the growth of the platform in partnership with Renovus. Marks Baughan Securities LLC served as the exclusive financial advisor to Angeion Group in the transaction.

Angeion, which is also headquartered in Philadelphia, is the leading innovator in the class action settlement industry. As a global provider of notice and claims administration services, the company has built a technology platform that enables its legal experts to manage the largest and most complex class action settlements.

The Renovus partnership will enable Angeion to accelerate the buildout of its management, client service, and delivery teams and increase investment in its proprietary class action technology solutions. Angeion plans to grow its leadership position in the US market and continue to develop its international business through a combination of key hires, new solutions, and strategic acquisitions.

Angeion was founded in 2013 by Steve Weisbrot, Esq. and Christopher Chimicles, with a mission to modernize the class action settlements industry. With over 160 team members, the Company provides high-quality service and innovative technology solutions in settlement administration, adapting to the constantly evolving legal services ecosystem. To date, its team has managed more than 2,000 class action settlements and distributed over $10 billion to class members.

"This partnership marks a major milestone in Angeion's growth journey," said Weisbrot. "The investment from Renovus is a testament to the dynamic team that has propelled Angeion into the great company that it is today and that will continue to drive its growth into the future. I am extremely proud of what we have accomplished, and I am even more energized for the years ahead."

"Angeion is one of the most differentiated and fastest growing players in class action services," said Renovus Managing Director Lee Minkoff. "Renovus has a track record of identifying unique tech-enabled legal services companies, aligning with management on a growth thesis, and making investments to execute that thesis. This is the exact opportunity we have with Angeion, and we could not be more excited to partner with Steve and the management team."

Marks Baughan served as exclusive financial advisor to Angeion Group.

About Angeion Group

Angeion Group stands at the forefront of settlement administration and legal noticing services. Leveraging advanced technology, proven best practices, and expert consulting, Angeion specializes in managing class actions and other types of mass litigation. Angeion's dedication to efficiency, accountability, and excellence instills confidence in counsel and the court alike. 

About Renovus Capital PartnersFounded in 2010, Renovus Capital Partners is a lower middle-market private equity firm specializing in the Knowledge and Talent industries. From its base in the Philadelphia area, Renovus manages over $2 billion of assets across its several sector focused funds. The firm's current portfolio includes over 30 U.S. based businesses specializing in education and workforce development and services companies in the technology, healthcare and professional services markets. Renovus typically makes control buyout investments in founder owned businesses, leveraging its industry expertise and operator network to make operational improvements, recruit top talent and pursue add-on acquisitions. Visit us at www.renovuscapital.com and follow us on LinkedIn.

Read More

GreenX Metals Awarded £252M in Compensation in Arbitration Claims Funded by LCM

By Harry Moran |

Disputes between companies involved in mining operations continue to represent valuable opportunities for litigation funders, with bilateral investment treaties offering avenues for these corporations to seek compensation from nation states.

An announcement from GreenX Metals Limited revealed that the company has reached a successful outcome in its arbitration claims against the Republic of Poland, and has been awarded two substantial sums of compensation by the tribunal. The claims were brought against Poland under the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), with GreenX arguing that the Polish government had breached its obligations under the treaties in relation to the Jan Karski mining project. 

The tribunal awarded GreenX £252 million under the BIT and a further £183 million in compensation under the ECT. However, GreenX also revealed that the tribunal did not uphold the company’s claim in relation to the Dębieńsko project. The tribunal’s ruling on these claims are also final and binding, with no provision for an appeal procedure, in accordance with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules (UNCITRAL).

As part of the announcement, GreenX highlighted that the claims had been financially supported by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), referring to the company’s July 2020 announcement that it had secured an A$18 million funding facility to pursue the arbitration. GreenX noted that whilst the tribunal has ordered each party to cover their own legal costs, all of GreenX’s costs have already been covered by the funding from LCM.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Phil Goter, Partner, Intellectual Property Group, Barnes & Thornburg

By John Freund |

Clients trust Phillip Goter to enforce and manage their valuable intellectual property. Phil counsels organizations – ranging from startups to Fortune 100 companies – around the world, managing litigation through trial and appeal, thoughtfully obtaining patents and trademarks, conducting pre-suit investigations, advising on regulatory issues, conducting due diligence and freedom to operate analyses, and resolving complex disputes.

Phil leverages his business and industry experience when working with his clients, and they value his strategic thinking and trust his counsel regarding IP strategies that protect R&D investment and product markets.

Phil, who practices in the firm’s Minneapolis office, frequently works with high-tech clients in the computer software and hardware space. His keen familiarity with computer hardware, standards-essential cellular infrastructure, 5G, GPS, mobile apps, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer and network security, VoIP, wireless networking, home automation, medical devices, and cloud computing aid him in providing successful outcomes for his clients.

He has deep experience providing counsel to international businesses on U.S. intellectual property matters, including representing European and Asian consumer electronics, networking and telecommunications, and pharmaceutical companies in global IP disputes. His practice includes patent litigation in U.S. district courts around the country and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the majority in key patent litigation venues such as Texas, Delaware, and California.

Phil also has significant experience with complex economic matters and his cases have included competition law issues, such as monopolization, attempted monopolization, and Walker Process and sham litigation claims. He has successfully obtained lost profits verdicts in pharmaceutical cases and has commissioned and used numerous expert surveys in litigation to prove infringement, indirect infringement, rates of infringement, apportionment, lost profits, and value of the invention.

He also has in-house counsel experience. Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Phil was an investment manager and legal counsel for a global, publicly traded litigation finance and legal risk management company. He advanced the company’s IP initiatives globally and handled U.S. litigation matters through the entire life cycle of the litigation funding relationship, including sourcing, evaluating, and monitoring IP and commercial investments through to resolution.

Outside of his legal practice, Phil teaches intellectual property at the University of Minnesota Law School and can often be found at the hockey rink, coaching his three children’s youth hockey teams.

Company Name and Description: With more than 800 attorneys and other legal professionals, Barnes & Thornburg is one of the largest law firms in the country. We serve clients worldwide from offices in Atlanta, Boston, California, Chicago, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, South Florida, Texas and Washington, D.C. We provide guidance in more than 50 dedicated practice areas, including litigation, intellectual property, labor and employment and corporate law. We are where you need us. Find out more at btlaw.com.

Company Website: btlaw.com

Year Founded: 1982

Headquarters: Largest office is in Indianapolis

Area of Focus: Intellectual property

Member Quote: Litigation finance has become an increasingly important financial tool for IP owners, who often find themselves disadvantaged by large, well-capitalized competitors. In this lopsided dynamic, non-recourse capital from trusted legal funders gives me the ability to right the harms inflicted upon my clients.

Read More

Litigation Capital Management Limited Positive Update on Fund I Investment

By Harry Moran |

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions internationally, announces a positive development on an investment within its Fund I portfolio.

LCM has funded a claim advanced in respect of an international arbitration claim brought against the Republic of Poland under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules. The Tribunal has unanimously held in favour of the funded party that the Republic of Poland breached its obligations under the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty and the Energy Charter Treaty.  

The quantum of the award entered in favour of LCM's funded party totals A$490 million plus interest.

LCM's funded party has therefore been successful in the claim. If the award is not subject to challenge and is not satisfied the dispute will move to an enforcement stage. We will assess any further funding requirements once the enforcement strategy has been finalised.

The total investment into the case to date is A$16.6 million (US$11.3 million). This investment comprises A$4.2 million (US$2.8 million) from LCM’s own balance sheet and A$12.4 million (US$8.5 million) of third party capital from Fund I. In line with our usual practice LCM's returns are calculated as a rising multiple of invested capital over time.  

This investment is no longer attended with liability and quantum risk as that has been decided. Final performance will be announced to the market after conclusion of the investment. However, if the award is satisfied within a reasonable period without the need for enforcement, then based upon the contractual terms with the funded party as at the date of this announcement, LCM would be entitled to a multiple of 6 times its own invested capital plus significant performance fees on third party capital invested. 

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: "This announcement represents a very significant milestone in this investment. Subject to any challenge to the very favourable and unanimous award we now move to an enforcement stage. This investment is part of Fund I and therefore stands to benefit from significant performance fees giving it the potential to be the most successful investment in LCM’s history."

About LCM

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is an alternative asset manager specialising in disputes financing solutions internationally, which operates two business models. The first is direct investments made from LCM's permanent balance sheet capital and the second is third party fund management. Under those two business models, LCM currently pursues three investment strategies: Single-case funding, Portfolio funding and Acquisitions of claims. LCM generates its income from both its direct investments and also performance fees through asset management.

LCM has an unparalleled track record driven by disciplined project selection and robust risk management. Currently headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.

www.lcmfinance.com

Read More

Tactical Management Announces Acquisition of Avyana Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

An investment vehicle advised by Tactical Management has successfully acquired Avyana Litigation Funding, further expanding its strategic portfolio in the legal financing sector.

Tactical Management, a globally active turnaround investor, specializes in unlocking the potential of underperforming companies, distressed real estate, and non-performing loans. The firm’s expertise lies in driving value and growth through strategic and operational support across a range of sectors and asset types.

Avyana Litigation Funding is dedicated to democratizing justice by providing financial support for complex legal disputes. As a trusted partner to minority shareholders, investors, and businesses, Avyana not only funds their fight to pursue rightful claims but also helps them monetize these claims, turning legal challenges into financial opportunities.

The acquisition aligns with Tactical Management’s strategic focus on supporting businesses with high-growth potential through innovative solutions. The acquisition of Avyana allows Tactical Management to strengthen its presence in the legal financing market, offering comprehensive services such as:

  • Shareholder Disputes: Funding legal battles over shareholder rights, corporate governance, and mismanagement.
  • Investor Claims: Supporting claims related to corporate misconduct, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Bankruptcy Litigation: Financing litigation to recover debts or protect interests during bankruptcy proceedings.
  • Individual or Collective Legal Actions: Providing funding for both individual and group legal actions.

Through this acquisition, Tactical Management enhances its ability to generate value for investors and stakeholders by tapping into the rapidly growing litigation funding market.

Read More

Chris Dore Joins Bridge Legal as Managing Director, Strategic Opportunities

By Harry Moran |

Bridge Legal, a leading provider of AI legal workflows, data management, and predictive analytics solutions for litigation funders and the high-volume law firms they support, is pleased to announce the appointment of Chris Dore as Managing Director, Strategic Opportunities.

With over 15 years of experience as a litigator and litigation funder specializing in mass torts, single-event, and class-action matters, Chris brings a wealth of expertise to Bridge Legal. Prior to joining the company, he served as a Partner at Edelson PC, a nationally recognized mass tort and class-action law firm, and most recently as a Director at Burford Capital, the world's largest litigation funder.

In his new role, Chris will focus on expanding and managing Bridge Legal's capital market strategies in high-volume consumer litigation. He will leverage the company's industry leading marketing, intake, case maturation, and AI-driven software platform—Bridgify—to strengthen relationships within the mass tort, mass arbitration, and single-event space. His efforts aim to enhance the sophistication of services offered to Bridge Legal's law firm and litigation funder clients, providing them with the tools and resources necessary to thrive amidst increasing data complexity and operational risk.

"Bridgify's AI workflow capabilities are transforming the way litigation funders and law firms operate by providing unprecedented visibility over their investments and case portfolios," said Ed Scanlan, Founder & CEO of Bridge Legal. "We are thrilled to welcome Chris to our leadership team. His extensive experience in mass torts and litigation funding aligns perfectly with our strategic vision. With his leadership, we aim to further enhance Bridgify's AI-driven solutions to meet the evolving needs of litigation funders and the firms they support. Chris's role will be pivotal in deepening our relationships within the industry and elevating the services we provide."

"I'm excited to join the leading legal tech company in the industry," said Chris. "Bridgify represents the future of high-volume legal services and litigation funding by integrating AI to streamline and enhance every facet of investment and case management. By focusing on expanding capital investments in high-volume consumer litigation and leveraging Bridge Legal's innovative platforms, we can provide unparalleled value to our clients. I look forward to contributing to Bridge Legal's mission of increasing human access to justice and helping to lead the company into its next chapter."

About Bridge Legal

Bridge Legal is the leading provider of AI workflow and predictive analytics solutions for litigation funders and the law firms they support. From its Chicago office, the company also offers marketing and intake services to help firms build their dockets, as well as back-office support for rapid case prove-up, including Plaintiff Fact Sheets and medical record reviews. Combined with its flagship platform, Bridgify—which includes data management and normalization, AI-driven workflow automation, integration management, predictive analytics, client communication and asset monitoring and fund management—this provides a game-changing, flexible offering unmatched in the industry. By integrating advanced technology with industry expertise, Bridge Legal empowers its clients to streamline operations, enhance client services, and drive profitable growth in an increasingly complex legal landscape.

Read More

Rep. Issa Introduces Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By Harry Moran |

Whilst it has mostly been at the state level where we have seen progress on legislation designed to increase transparency and disclosure around third-party litigation funding, this now looks set to change with the introduction of a new bill to Congress.

An article in Bloomberg Law covers the news that Republican congressman Darrell Issa has introduced a new bill to the House of Representatives, seeking to enshrine litigation funding disclosure into federal law. H.R.9922 was introduced last Friday, with the bill’s title signalling Rep. Issa’s intention “to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for transparency and oversight of third-party beneficiaries in civil actions.” According to Bloomberg’s reporting, the bill would require both the disclosure of the identity of any litigation funder and the disclosure of the funding agreement present in a civil lawsuit.

Rep. Issa said that the proposed legislation “targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system and achieves a standard of transparency that people deserve and our standard of law requires.” Issa argued that the existence of litigation funding in a case should always be disclose, because “when we achieve a lasting measure of awareness by all parties, it will advance fair and equal treatment by the justice system and deter bad actors from exploiting our courts.”

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald is also listed as a co-sponsor for the bill.

H.R.9922 can be tracked here, although the full text of the bill is not yet available. 

Free Conference on Recent Legislative Responses to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The Center on Civil Justice at New York University School of Law mission is dedicated to the U.S. civil justice system and the continued fulfillment of its purpose. The Center brings together the unmatched strengths of the NYU Law faculty in the fields of procedure and complex litigation with the sophisticated practitioners and judges who make up our Board of Advisers.  Together we endeavor to support our civil courts as a place for people to fairly and efficiently resolve their problems and access justice.

The Center on Civil Justice at NYU School of Law will host a one-day conference on October 28, 2024 on the subject of legislative efforts to regulate third-party legal funding with the goal of connecting the debates on key legal funding issues taking place in academia and among practitioners, lobbyists and legislators, in the US and in Europe.  

The conference will consist of three panels, each focusing on a different legal funding reform effort. These include U.S. legislative efforts to regulate commercial litigation financing and consumer legal funding, in addition to an examination of European and other international legislative attempts to regulate third-party funding. The bill sponsors will be invited to present, along with experts on the topics the bill covers.

The event will take place on October 28, 2024, from 9am - 3:30pm.  We encourage everyone to attend in-person at Greenberg Lounge of Vanderbilt Hall, 40 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012.

For those who cannot do so, the event will also be livestreamed via Zoom.  A link will be sent out to everyone who RSVPs.

The event is free, and we will be applying for CLE credit. 

Register Here: https://forms.gle/Z5UuQcB2geNhRe7dA.

9:15 AM – 9:30 AM – Opening Remarks

9:30 AM – 11:00 AM - Panel 1: Disclosure of Commercial Litigation Financing Agreements

While much of the state legislation enacted on third-party litigation finance has focused on consumer legal funding, states and the federal government have begun to think about the regulation of commercial litigation funding as well.  Specifically, the issue of whether, under what circumstances, and to what extent to disclose commercial third-party funding has been one of the most significant policy questions facing the industry for years.   Legislation has been introduced or passed in West Virginia, Wisconsin, and US Congress regarding disclosure of commercial funding agreements, and we will discuss these bills and others and how they will impact the commercial funding landscape.

11:15 AM – 12:45 PM – Panel 2: New York A.115 - Consumer Funding

Much, if not most, state legislation focuses specifically on consumer legal funding and not commercial litigation financing.  New York State alone has five different such bills.  This panel chooses to focus on A.115, which has passed the New York State Senate but not the Assembly – the bill that has so far advanced the furthest.  This bill caps returns to funders at the military lending rate.  Other bills do not place such a cap at all but require full disclosure of the contract.  This panel will discuss what is the best way forward to regulate the product in New York and across the country.

12:45 PM – 1:30 PM – Lunch

1:30 PM – 3:00 PM – Panel 3: EU P9_TA (2022) 0308 - International Legislation

In 2022, the EU Parliament adopted a resolution to introduce legislation creating minimum standards for third-party funding in the EU.  The European Commission has yet to submit a formal proposal for the EU Parliament and European Commission to consider.  However, the principals outlined in the resolution highlight many significant discussion points within the industry and demonstrate the state of international regulation of the industry.

3:00 PM – 3:15 PM – Closing Remarks

RSVP for the event here: https://forms.gle/Z5UuQcB2geNhRe7dA.

Read More

Government Must Protect Litigation Funding That Helped Sub-Postmasters, Say Consumer Champions and Small Businesses  

By Harry Moran |

Consumer champions and small businesses have called on the Government to introduce urgent legislation to protect the funding mechanism that helped Alan Bates expose the Post Office.

Litigation funding is currently supporting the equal pay claims of 100,000 female supermarket workers, rugby players facing life-changing injuries, and billpayers claiming water companies lied about dumping raw sewage in the UK’s waterways. Funders provide financial backing for cases in exchange for an agreed share of the proceeds.

But since a 2023 Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR which sent shockwaves through the sector, uncertainty has impacted claimants and funders. Defendants have mounted a series of legal challenges to funding arrangements with Apple, Sony and Mastercard all set to challenge current funding models in the Court of Appeal next year. Additionally, there was a 75% slowdown in cases funded in the second half of last year, according to Exton Advisors which is an independent specialist adviser to claimants, funders and law firms.

In an open letter to the Government, class representatives for millions of consumers and the truck hauliers involved in the original PACCAR claim against a price-fixing cartel, said the PACCAR ruling “jeopardises past, present and future funding agreements, and is threatening access to justice for individuals and businesses”.

bill to fix the issue had won cross-party support in the previous Parliament, but had not passed into law before Parliament was dissolved. The new Government has said it will not review the need for legislation until late next year.  

Signatories of the open letter said: “While there has previously been cross-party support for a simple and speedy legislative fix, the Government is dragging its heels on addressing the issue. Until this issue is resolved, uncertainty for claimants will persist.  

“We call on the Prime Minister - who spent his legal career securing justice for those who needed it - to urgently introduce a simple legal fix to ensure David can afford to take on Goliath and access to justice is preserved for those seeking to protect their basic rights.”

Neil Purslow, chairman of the International Legal Finance Association and chief investment officer at funder Therium which backed the sub-postmasters’ case, said:

“Litigation funding provides a narrow route to justice for businesses and individuals - many of whom are trying to protect their basic rights.

“We hope the Government hears these concerns, understands the real impact this is having on claimants and brings forward an urgent fix so people like the sub-postmasters can continue to access and secure justice in the future.”

Notes

Professor Carolyn Roberts vs Thames Water, Severn Trent, Anglian Water and Others

  •  A collective action against six UK water companies for alleged overcharging due to underreporting of sewage pollution incidents between 2017-2020.

Alex Neill, Class Representative, vs Sony Playstation

  • A £5bn collective action alleging Sony abused its dominant position by imposing unfair terms on PlayStation game developers, resulting in excessive prices for consumers.

Nikki Stopford, Class Representative, vs Google and Others

  • A £7bn collective action alleging Google abused its dominant position in the search engine market, resulting in inflated advertising costs and higher prices for consumers.

Clare Spottiswoode, Class Representative, vs Nexans France SAS & Others

  • A collective action alleging that cable manufacturers' cartel activities led to inflated domestic electricity prices in Great Britain. 

Richard Smith, Chairman of Road Hauliers Association, vs PACCAR and Others

  • A £2bn opt-in class action against major truck manufacturers for their involvement in a price-fixing cartel that allegedly inflated vehicle prices between 1997 and 2011.

Open letter from claimants and class reps

Over the years, litigation funding has helped to remedy some of the worst miscarriages of justice in legal history. It has levelled the playing field for individuals and small businesses, as well as exposing corporate wrongdoing on a colossal scale - from the Post Office Horizon scandal to Dieselgate. 

Today the sector is financially backing attempts to secure people’s basic rights — supporting equal pay claims for over 100,000 women, helping sportspeople receive compensation for life-changing injuries, and holding water companies to account for dumping sewage in our waterways.

But the recent Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling now jeopardizes past, present and future funding agreements, and is threatening access to justice for individuals and businesses. 

While there has previously been cross-party support for a simple and speedy legislative fix, the Government is dragging its heels on addressing the issue. Until that fix is put in place, uncertainty for claimants will persist.  

We call on the Prime Minister - who spent his legal career securing justice for those who needed it - to urgently introduce a simple legal fix to ensure David can afford to take on Goliath and access to justice is preserved for those seeking to protect their basic rights.

Signed

Richard Smith, Chairman of Road Hauliers Association, vs PACCAR and Others
Professor Carolyn Roberts vs Thames Water, Severn Trent, Anglian Water and Others
Alex Neill, Class Representative, vs Sony Playstation
Nikki Stopford, Class Representative, vs Google and Others
Clare Spottiswoode, Class Representative, vs Nexans France SAS & Others

More Than 100 Companies Sign Letter Urging Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Rule for Federal Courts Ahead of October Judicial Rules Meeting

By Harry Moran |

In the most significant demonstration of concern for secretive third-party litigation funding (TPLF) to date, 124 companies, including industry leaders in healthcare, technology, financial services, insurance, energy, transportation, automotive and other sectors today sent a letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules urging creation of a new rule that would require a uniform process for the disclosure of TPLF in federal cases nationwide. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will meet on October 10 and plans to discuss whether to move ahead with the development of a new rule addressing TPLF.

The letter, organized by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ), comes at a time when TPLF has grown into a 15 billion dollar industry and invests funding in an increasing number of cases which, in turn, has triggered a growing number of requests from litigants asking courts to order the disclosure of funding agreements in their cases. The letter contends that courts are responding to these requests with a “variety of approaches and inconsistent practices [that] is creating a fragmented and incoherent procedural landscape in the federal courts.” It states that a rule is “particularly needed to supersede the misplaced reliance on ex parte conversations; ex parte communications are strongly disfavored by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges because they are both ineffective in educating courts and highly unfair to the parties who are excluded.”

Reflecting the growing concern with undisclosed TPLF and its impact on the justice system, LCJ and the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) submitted a separate detailed comment letter to the Advisory Committee that also advocates for a “simple and predictable rule for TPLF disclosure.”

Alex Dahl, LCJ’s General Counsel said: “The Advisory Committee should propose a straightforward, uniform rule for TPLF disclosure. Absent such a rule, the continued uncertainty and court-endorsed secrecy of non-party funding will further unfairly skew federal civil litigation. The support from 124 companies reflects both the importance of a uniform disclosure rule and the urgent need for action.”

The corporate letter advances a number of additional reasons why TPLF disclosure is needed in federal courts:

Control: The letter argues that parties “cannot make informed decisions without knowing the stakeholders who control the litigation… and cannot understand the control features of a TPLF agreement without reading the agreement.” While many funding agreements state that the funder does not control the litigation strategy, companies are increasingly concerned that they use their growing financial leverage to exercise improper influence.

Procedural safeguards: The companies maintain that the safeguards embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) cannot work without disclosure of TPLF.  One example is that courts and parties today are largely unaware of and unable to address conflicts between witnesses, the court, and parties on the one hand, and non-parties on the other, when these funding agreements and the financial interests behind them remain largely secret.

Appraisal of the case: Finally, the letter reasons that the FRCP already require the disclosure of corporate insurance policies which the Advisory Committee explained in 1970 “will enable counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not speculation.” The companies maintain that this very same logic should also require the disclosure of TPLF given its growing role and impact on federal civil litigation.

Besides the corporate letter and joint comment, LCJ is intensifying its efforts to rally companies and practitioners to Ask About TPLF in their cases, and to press for a uniform federal rule to require disclosure. LCJ will be launching a new Ask About TPLF website that will serve as a hub for its new campaign later this month.

Read More

Mesh Capital Hires Augusto Delarco to Bolster Litigation Finance Practice

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Mesh Capital announced the hiring of Augusto Delarco who has joined the Brazilian firm as a Senior Associate, bringing a “solid and distinguished track record in complex litigation and innovative financial solutions” to help develop Mesh Capital’s Litigation Finance and Special Situations practices. 

The announcement highlighted the experience Delarco would bring to the team, noting that throughout his career “he has advised clients, investors, and asset managers on strategic cases and the structuring of investments involving judicial assets.”

Delarco joins Mesh Capital from Padis Mattars Lawyers where he served as an associate lawyer, having previously spent six years at Tepedino, Migliore, Berezowski and Poppa Laywers.

Mesh Capital is based out of São Paulo and specialises in special situations, legal claims and distressed assets. Within litigation finance, Mesh Capital focuses on “the acquisition, sale and structuring of legal claims, covering private, public and court-ordered credit rights.”

Delaware Court Denies Target’s Discovery Request for Funding Documents in Copyright Infringement Case

By Harry Moran |

A recent court opinion in a copyright infringement cases has once again demonstrated that judges are hesitant to force plaintiffs and their funders to hand over information that is not relevant to the claim at hand, as the judge denied the defendant’s discovery request for documents sent by the plaintiff to its litigation funder.

In an article on E-Discovery LLC, Michael Berman analyses a ruling handed down by Judge Stephanos Bibas in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in the case of Design With Friends, Inc. v. Target Corporation. Design has brought a claim of copyright infringement and breach of contract, and received funding to pursue the case from Validity Finance. As part of its defense, Target had sought documents from the funder relating to its involvement in the case, but Judge Bibas ruled that Target’s request was both “too burdensome to disclose” and was seeking “information that is attorney work product”.

Target’s broad subpoena contained five requests for information including Validity’s valuations of the lawsuit, communications between the funder and plaintiff prior to the funding agreement being signed, and information about the relationship between the two parties.

With regards to the valuations, Judge Bibas wrote that “while those documents informed an investment decision, they did so by evaluating whether a lawsuit had merit and what damages it might recover,” which in the court’s opinion constitutes “legal analysis done for a legal purpose”. He went on to say that “if the work-product doctrine did not protect these records,” then the forced disclosure of these documents “would chill lawyers from discussing a pending case frankly.”

Regarding the requests for information about the relationship between Design and Validity, Judge Bibas was clear in his opinion that these requests were disproportionately burdensome. The opinion lays out clear the clear reasoning that “Target already knows that Validity is funding the suit and that it does not need to approve a settlement”, and with this information already available “Further minutiae about Validity are hardly relevant to whether Target infringed a copyright or breached a contract years before Validity entered the picture.”The full opinion from Judge Bibas can be read here.

Burford CEO Sees Opportunities for Funding Hospital Lawsuits

By Harry Moran |

When discussing the use of litigation funding for disputes in the healthcare sector, we most often think of funders providing the financial backing for individuals or groups of patients who were victims of medical malpractice in some form. However, a statement by the leader of one of the world’s leading funders suggests that it may be hospitals themselves who could seek litigation financing.

An article in BNN Bloomberg reports on a media briefing given by Burford Capital’s CEO, Christopher Bogart, who discussed the potential opportunities for litigation funders to invest in health care lawsuits. 

Bogart said that “there is such enormous economic pressure in the health care industry that it leads to a fair bit of bad behavior and quite a significant number of disputes”, and that in this environment, “insurance companies are increasingly difficult in paying health care claims.” 

Whilst Bogart acknowledged that it is a “relatively new” trend for hospitals to access third-party legal funding, there are opportunities in situations where these hospitals can bundle individual claims into one lawsuit or arbitration to force these insurers to pay the outstanding claims. However, according to Bloomberg’s reporting, Bogart did not say whether Burford Capital has already funded this type of lawsuit brought by hospitals.

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

By John Freund |

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled "Spotlight on Insurance." The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren't able to do that as a first-time manager, but it's something we'd like to explore in the future. We're currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to 'yes.'

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I'm seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It's very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders - an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn't go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn't be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you've got a policy with an insurer and you're invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder-- all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you're not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you're not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you'll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the 'divide and rule game' with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we've been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) - things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won't be insurable in the US. But we're seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that's where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we've been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Read More

Burford Capital Marks 15-Year Anniversary with Business Data and New Legal Finance Research

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, has grown significantly since its founding in 2009. As part of ongoing recognition of the growth in legal finance and Burford’s industry leadership as it celebrates its 15th anniversary, it today shares data from its own performance and releases new research based on one-on-one phone interviews with senior lawyers at global law firms who have a front seat to growing awareness and use of legal finance by their clients and firms.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, says: “Jon Molot and I started Burford 15 years ago because of economic inefficiencies we saw in the business of law. We’re delighted that our business has since grown from niche to mainstream and is now truly ‘corporate finance for law.’ From day one, our priority has been to listen to clients’ needs, and as a result, we have a suite of tools that provide liquidity, de-risk contingent matters and enable more strategic affirmative recoveries. Burford has earned a reputation as the go-to firm for legal finance, and we’re excited about the road ahead. We’ll keep our focus on clients, innovation and advancing the business of law.”

Data from Burford’s business confirms its performance as a legal finance industry leader:

  • Exceptional growth in our business: Burford began in 2009 as a $130 million fund; today, Burford has a portfolio of more than $7 billion.
  • Increased demand for what we do: In 2009, Burford committed $11 million to legal finance assets; in 2023, that number was $1.2 billion on a Group-wide basis.
  • Growing relevance to sophisticated businesses, with innovation to address corporate balance sheet and P&L needs: More than half our business now comes from corporate clients. Many seek monetizations ― where Burford provides businesses immediate capital by advancing some of the expected entitlement of a pending claim, judgment or award ― and we have committed very substantial capital over the past five years to monetization deals from $10 million to $325 million.
  • Development of human capital and proprietary data: In 2009, we had five employees; today, we have seven offices and more than 150 employees. In addition, Burford has built an industry-leading proprietary database of commercial dispute outcomes and tools that harness machine learning, data analytics and artificial intelligence to benefit our clients and our performance.
  • NYSE-listed in 2020: We have been public since 2009 and have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2020.

Similarly, research released today by Burford reveals that legal finance has exploded in visibility and value with lawyers. Key findings include:

  • 82% of law firm lawyers surveyed claim to have used legal finance, a ninefold increase since Burford first asked law firm lawyers this question in 2012. Although confirmation bias may result in overstatement of actual use, even accounting for this, legal finance’s enormous increased stated use reflects its visibility and acceptance in the business of law.
  • Lawyers are using legal finance in more sophisticated ways: Many law firm lawyers affirm that legal finance is now used to strategically manage risk rather than because clients lack funds. Law firm lawyers and their clients see legal finance as a strategic tool across commercial litigation and arbitration as well as more complex financial structures like portfolio financing and funded patent divestitures.
  • An Am Law 50 law firm partner said: “For some of the bigger clients, you see more portfolio deals rather than single transactions. Not many companies start with a portfolio, but as they see success, both law firms and corporations are pursuing portfolio transactions.”
  • Law firms are embracing legal finance to fuel growth, as more than eight in ten of those surveyed report a more positive perception of legal finance than 15 years ago.
  • A Global 100 law firm partner said: “The client's mindset has completely changed, and they are now coming to their outside counsel and asking for litigation funding options. Offering the use of funding and using it is a validation of the merit of a claim and is a good pressure point.”
  • Law firm lawyers confirm that corporate clients are increasingly using legal finance, as 82% of those surveyed said the use of legal finance by corporations has increased over this period.
  • A litigation boutique partner said: “Litigation is a bottom-line cost. If corporations can spread that risk by sharing it with an outside capital provider, CFOs want to explore that option, especially because corporations hate litigation expenses. They are much more open to it if they can get some or all of it covered by legal finance.”

The research is based on one-on-one phone interviews conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors with 44 senior lawyers from global law firms in August and September 2024. The participants included partners, department heads and practice group chairs. Of these respondents, 34% came from AmLaw 100 law firms and 30% from Global 100 law firms.

Read More

Funded Class Action Targeting Online Gambling Operators in the Netherlands

By Harry Moran |

The online gambling market has seen enormous growth over recent years. However, the dramatic rise of this sector has left vulnerable consumers open to abuse, with a new class action in the Netherlands seeking to address this.

An article in iGB covers a Dutch class action being brought against a group of licensed online gambling operators, who were active in the Netherlands prior to receiving their official licenses to operate. The class action is being brought by Dutch advocacy organisation, Gokverliesterug, on behalf of Dutch consumers for losses suffered with these operators prior to 1 October 2021, the date at which the Netherlands legalised its online gambling market. 

The core allegation of the class action is that these companies allowed Dutch citizens to gamble using their online platforms before the legalisation took place, meaning that these consumers were not protected by the proper oversight and regulation of problem gambling behaviours. The gambling operators named in the Gokverliesterug lawsuit include major global gaming brands such as Unibet, Bwin, PokerStars and Bet365; although iGB’s article includes a denial from Bet365 that it was active in the Netherlands prior to being licensed. 

The lawyer representing Gokverliesterug, Koen Rutten of law firm Finch, stated: “We hope for a quick settlement of the case, but thanks to a litigation funder, we have sufficient clout to conduct a lengthy procedure up to the European Court. In doing so, we have paid extra attention for the role of parties that have facilitated illegal casinos for years, such as banks and payment processors.”

The litigation funder backing the case has not been identified.

International Legal Finance Association Adds IVO Capital Partners as New Member

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced the addition of Paris-based legal finance provider IVO Capital Partners as its 25th member. 

“ILFA is pleased to welcome IVO Capital Partners to our growing membership ranks,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “IVO’s addition serves as the quarter century mark for ILFA’s global membership. The firm will play a crucial role in helping ILFA promote the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector around the world.” 

“We are thrilled that IVO’s team is joining ILFA’s diverse roster of commercial legal funders,” said Neil Purslow, ILFA Chairman and Co-Founder of Therium, an ILFA member. “The addition of yet another legal finance provider this year demonstrates the increasingly important role that ILFA plays as the global voice for the ever-expanding legal finance industry, particularly in Europe.” 

IVO Capital Partners is an independent asset management company specializing in corporate debt and has established itself as a leader in the European legal finance industry. The firm boasts over a decade of experience in litigation funding, investing over $166 million in 64 cases across a wide array of geographies and action types. IVO is currently deploying its third legal finance fund, IVO Legal Strategies Fund III SLP. 

“The key role being played by ILFA in working with members of the litigation funding industry, as well as all other professionals involved with this industry, has made this membership a requirement for us to be even more active in the evolution and growth of the industry,” said Paul de Servigny, the fund manager of IVO’s litigation finance activities. “With Europe as our main source of business, we are very happy to be able to contribute to growing ILFA’s reach and understanding of different jurisdictions and how litigation finance is viewed there.”

About the International Legal Finance Association 

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 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 find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official.

About IVO Capital Partners 

IVO Capital Partners is an independent French asset management company with more than €1.5 billion in assets under management. Founded in 2012, it invests in listed and unlisted credit on emerging market corporate bonds and litigation finance. IVO Capital Partners' expertise allows its client-investors to access new investment universes with clarity and profitability and also to provide access to financing, on the one hand, to companies established in emerging countries and, on the other hand, to litigation so that they can lead to compensation. The company employs 14 nationalities and invests in more than 50 countries. IVO is among Europe’s leaders in the legal finance industry, with more than $166 million invested and more than 64 cases financed as of 2024. For over a decade, IVO’s expert investment team has ensured asymmetric returns for investors while promoting the rights of parties involved in meritorious litigation and class-action lawsuits. For more information, visit www.ivocapital.com

Read More
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Richard Culberson, CEO, VoiceNation and Moneypenny North America

By John Freund |

Member Bio: Richard Culberson is the CEO of VoiceNation and Moneypenny North America, global leaders 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. The business  has an award-winning culture, with over 1,000 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.

Company Name and Description:  Moneypenny and VoiceNation are America’s leading virtual receptionist & phone answering providers offering 24/7 communication solutions. 

Collectively, Moneypenny and VoiceNation employ over 1,000 people handling millions of calls, chats and bespoke tech solutions for thousands of businesses of all shapes and sizes from sole traders right up to multinational corporations.

Company Websitewww.voicenation.com & www.moneypenny.com

Year Founded:  2000

Headquarters:  Atlanta (USA) and Wrexham (UK)

Area of Focus: Richard Culberson, CEO of North America, focuses on strategic growth, innovation, and market expansion in the region combining the very best people and tech to provide gold standard customer contact solutions. 

Member Quote: "Litigation funding is transforming how businesses approach legal disputes. Moneypenny and VoiceNation provide bespoke call answering and customer service solutions, ensuring prompt and professional responses that improve client engagement and lead generation. We also provide 24/7 availability, allowing firms to capture opportunities and deliver excellent customer service even outside regular business hours.”

Read More

High Rise Financial Obtains $100 Million in Financing, Bryant Park Capital Acting as Exclusive Advisor

By Harry Moran |

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”) is pleased to report that High Rise Financial, LLC recently secured a $100 million senior secured credit facility with a group of syndicated bank lenders. High Rise Financial was founded by Mark Berookim and Michael Berookim in 2016 and is based in Los Angeles, California.

Bryant Park Capital served as the exclusive financial advisor to High Rise Financial in arranging this senior secured credit facility. Founded in 1991, BPC is an investment bank providing mergers and acquisitions, debt & equity, and corporate strategic advisory services to its clients in the middle market. For over 30 years, BPC has successfully guided middle-market firms through growth, expansion, and sales or acquisitions. Due to our client-driven approach, we have developed and maintain deep relationships with strategic and financial buyers, banks, private equity firms, hedge funds, and other institutional investors.

Michael Berookim, Managing Member of High Rise Financial, stated, “BPC’s combination of strong specialty finance expertise and industry relationships, along with their deep understanding of personal injury pre-settlement funding and medical factoring, has helped further accelerate our already exponential growth. They remain a valuable partner to us, and we are appreciative of their efforts to help us reach this $100 million milestone. They were a trusted advisor in the process from day one.”

About High Rise Financial

High Rise Financial is a leading nationwide litigation finance company in the personal injury industry. The company specializes in plaintiff pre-settlement funding, medical factoring and providing a network of medical providers that treat personal injury victims. High Rise Financial is a relationship-based company known for its ease of use and exceptional service to law firms, plaintiffs and medical providers. 

For more information about High Rise Financial, please visit www.highriselegalfunding.com.

About Bryant Park Capital

Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle-market public and private companies. BPC excels in providing M&A advisory and capital raising services for complex deal structures. BPC has raised various forms of credit and growth equity and assisted in mergers and acquisitions for its clients. The firm has completed approximately 30 engagements worth over $2 billion in transaction value within the legal funding industry. Overall, the team has completed more than 400 assignments representing an aggregate transaction value of over $30 billion. 

For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

Read More

Burford Capital Earmarks Further $150 Million for The Equity Project to Advance Diversity in Commercial Dispute Leadership

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, is doubling down on its commitment to addressing the lack of diversity in the leadership of commercial litigation and arbitration. In announcing the third phase of its award-winning Equity Project, Burford is earmarking an additional $150 million to fund commercial matters with a female or racially diverse lawyer in a leadership role, bringing its cumulative funds earmarked for this initiative to more than $300 million.

  • Given its leadership in funding global commercial litigation and arbitration, Burford has a front row seat to the continued lack of diverse lawyers in leadership roles and saw a need to address this gap.
  • Burford first launched The Equity Project in 2018 with $50 million earmarked to financing cases led by female lawyers.
  • In 2021, Burford launched phase two of The Equity Project, earmarking a further $100 million and extending the initiative to also finance racially diverse lawyers; further, it added a promise to contribute a share of proceeds from successfully resolved matters to organizations that promote diversity in the business of law.
  • With cumulative Equity Project commitments of almost $170 million, Burford is launching phase three with an additional $150 million earmarked.
  • As in phase two, if phase three Equity Project-funded matters resolve successfully and generate expected returns, Burford will contribute on its client's behalf a portion of its profits to organizations that promote lawyer development for female and racially diverse lawyers.

Aviva Will, President of Burford Capital, leads Burford's Equity Project initiative. 

Ms. Will states: "The Equity Project reflects Burford's values and our pragmatism—our belief not only that it is right to use our capital and our industry leadership to help close the diversity gap in the leadership of commercial disputes, but also that there is a tangible benefit to our clients and the business of law to doing so."

She continues: "The whole Burford team is proud of the impact we have made. Clients appreciate The Equity Project as a tool to promote leadership from diverse backgrounds, and we hear directly from those who've been funded that it makes a difference in their careers. From when I first started practicing law to today, the business of law has made progress, but the legal profession remains slow to adapt, and in providing economic levers for change, we are doing our part to expedite still more."

Equity Project Mission and Impact

The Equity Project enables female and racially diverse lawyers to compete for leadership roles in significant matters with attractive terms in place. It incentivizes firms to promote talent from diverse backgrounds and demonstrates innovation to clients. Businesses can use Equity Project capital to encourage the firms that represent them to appoint female and racially diverse lawyers on their matters, and as a reason to talk to their firms about diverse representation and origination credit.

Equity Project matters funded to date include contract disputes, antitrust, federal statutory, IP/patent and treaty and commercial arbitration matters, with female and racially diverse litigators in leadership roles (first or second chair), and with clients represented by women- or minority-owned firms. Clients include large corporations and large litigation boutiques.

We have to date provided financing for 19 different matters from the Equity Project, some of which were multi-case portfolios. The average amount of capital committed per matter was $8.9 million, indicating that these are large, complex litigation and arbitration matters. The matters qualified for inclusion in the Equity Project on the following basis:

  • 14 with first or second chair female lawyers
  • 3 with first or second chair racially diverse lawyers
  • 2 with both a female and racially diverse lawyer as lead lawyers

Equity Project Champions

Burford has also expanded its cadre of Equity Project Champions, corporate and law firm leaders who will support and spread awareness of the initiative. The expanded list, which is currently in formation, includes the following returning and new* Champions:

APAC

  • *Angela Ee, Asean and Singapore Turnaround and Restructuring Strategy Leader, EY-Parthenon
  • *Blossom Hing, Director, Dispute Resolution and Corporate Restructuring & Workouts, Drew and Napier
  • Brenda Horrigan, International Arbitrator

Europe

  • *Conway Blake, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton
  • Amy Frey, Partner, King & Spalding
  • Sophie Nappert, International Arbitrator; Co-Founder, ArbTech
  • *Akima Paul Lambert, Partner, Hogan Lovells
  • Sue Prevezer QC, International Arbitrator, Mediator and Consultant, Brick Court Chambers
  • Noradèle Radjai, Partner, Lalive
  • *Lauma Skruzmane, Founding and Co-Managing Partner, Butler Reichline Skruzmane
  • Daniel Winterfeldt MBE QC (Hon), Founder & Chair Interlaw Diversity Forum, Managing Director & General Counsel – EMEA And Asia, Jefferies

US

  • Elizabeth Brannen, Managing Partner & Chair of Intellectual Property Litigation, Stris & Maher
  • Mylan Denerstein, Co-Chair, Public Policy Practice Group, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
  • *Ryan Dunigan, Senior Division Counsel, Corning, Incorporated
  • The Honorable Katherine B. Forrest, Partner, Paul Weiss
  • Faith Gay, Founding Partner, Selendy & Gay
  • Maria Ginzburg, Partner, Selendy & Gay
  • Megan E. Jones, Partner, Hausfeld
  • Carolyn Lamm, Partner, White & Case
  • Tara Lee, Partner, White & Case
  • Roberta D. Liebenberg, Senior Partner, Fine, Kaplan & Black
  • Veta T. Richardson, President & CEO, Association of Corporate Counsel
  • Adriana Riviere-Badell, Partner, Kobre & Kim
  • *Lauren M. Weinstein, Partner, MoloLamken

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong.

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

Read More

Chamber of Commerce Publishes Paper ‘Debunking Myths’ in Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

Whilst the litigation funders and its advocates within the legal sector continue to promote the value of third-party funding to litigants and the broader legal system, opponents of litigation finance have not relented in putting forward their own arguments about why there is a need for greater regulation of the industry.

A new paper from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform sets out to once again challenge the litigation funding industry, arguing that the practice’s dominance within the legal system has not been accompanied by commensurate regulation or oversight that are seen in other areas of financial services. The paper entitled ‘Grim Realities: Debunking Myths in Third-Party Litigation Funding’ attempt to challenge these supposed myths, claiming that the funding industry “has successfully promoted a series of myths that boil down to the claim that TPLF is a benign—and usually salutary—business model that increases litigants’ access to justice and that should be of little interest to courts and lawmakers.”

The paper is divided into two main sections, with the first part dedicated to questioning the idea that litigation funders are altruistic investors, suggesting instead that third-party litigation funding “is just a vehicle for maximizing funders’ return on their investments—often to the detriment of the plaintiffs whose claims they are bankrolling.” To support this argument, the paper highlights four issues with the current state of litigation finance: the level of control funders can exert on cases, their alleged abuse of mass arbitrations, the involvement of foreign entities in US court cases, and the reduction in actual compensation received by litigants due to funders’ returns.

The second part of the paper then focuses on the response to third-party funding by the courts and policymakers, with the ILR report arguing that “the courts, legislatures, and regulators are becoming increasingly proactive in scrutinizing TPLF and requiring greater transparency of the practice.” The authors of the paper proceeds to list off a variety of responses to litigation funding including individual actions by federal district court judges, the introduction of new rules governing funding by state legislatures, and proposed regulatory measures in the UK and Europe.

The full paper can be read here.

Nakiki SE: Mask Lawsuits Will Not be Financed

By Harry Moran |

Nakiki SE announces that the two so-called “mask lawsuits” (lawsuits against the federal government for payment related to supply contracts for COVID masks), which are currently in the review phase or at the stage of a Letter of Intent, will not be financed after thorough and detailed examination.

Litigation funders such as Nakiki SE assess claims to be financed through both internal and external legal and economic evaluations. A decision not to finance a claim is not necessarily an indicator of the claim’s chances of success but may also be due to a limited risk appetite or other factors.

In principle, Nakiki SE remains interested in financing so-called mask lawsuits. Affected mask suppliers are still encouraged to contact Nakiki. Each case will be reviewed individually and promptly.

Read More

CASL Funding Extended Warranty Class Action

By Harry Moran |

Where corporations engage in deceptive actions that leave consumers financially wronged, class actions supported by third-party funders remain one of the best routes for these individuals to seek justice and compensation.

In a post on LinkedIn, CASL announced that it is funding a new class action launched by Echo Law multinational retailer Harvey Norman in Australia. The class action is being brought on behalf of consumers who bought goods with an extended warranty from Harvey Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne between 7 September 2018 and 17 September 2024. The proposed legal action focuses on allegations that these ‘Product Care’ extended warranties offered little or no value to consumers, as Australian Consumer Law provided for the same or greater rights to consumers on these purchases.

In the announcement, CASL said that it was “proud to support Echo Law's work in pursuit of remedies for consumers who were allegedly sold these junk warranties.” CASL also said that this case was a “clear example of how class action proceedings are a vital enforcement mechanism for Australia’s robust consumer protection laws.” The claim has been issued on an open class basis, which means that all eligible consumers will be included in the class unless they opt out.More information about the Harvey Norman (Extended Warranties) Class Action can be found on Echo Law’s website.

Houzhu Capital Hosts International Conference on Third-Party Funding Industry

By Harry Moran |

Houzhu Capital is delighted to invite you to join the International Conference on Third-party Funding Industry held in Beijing on 25 Sep, as part of the China Arbitration Week events. You may register here for in-person participation or online stream.

The Conference is the first international conference on TPF in China, which invites representatives from domestic and foreign arbitration centers, leading TPF institutions, well-known scholars, and practitioners from law firms and corporations.

Highlights of the event include:

  • Opening speech and welcome from Mr. Jin Huang, Chairman of Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center, and Mr. Jianlong Yu, Vice-president of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT).
  • Keynote speech on Third-party Funding in England and Wales: Learning from the Past, and Looking to the Future, by professor Rachael Patricia Mulheron from Queen Mary University.
  • Panel I: Third-party Funding in Arbitration Rules, moderated by Ms. Yulin Fu, Professor of Peking University Law School, joined by representatives from arbitration centers.
  • Panel II: International and Domestic Practice of Third-party Funding, moderated by Mr. Ning Fei, Senior Consultant of Houzhu Capital, joined by representatives from TPF institutions.
  • Panel III: International and Domestic Use of Third-party Funding, moderated by Mr. Jialu Wang, Co-funder of Houzhu Capital, joined by representatives from domestic and international corporations.

A cocktail reception will be provided after the Conference for networking and further communication.

About Houzhu

Houzhu Capital is a leading TPF institution in China with domestic and international business footprints and network. Founded by top legal professionals and as a pioneer in China, Houzhu has been committed to exploring the regulatory development and business practice of TPF services in China, supporting clients in domestic and international dispute resolution and asset recovery. You can find more about Houzhu here[Author2] 

Read More

How to Score a Win-Win Deal in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

One of the day two panels at the 7th Annual LF Dealmakers event was titled "Structuring Win-Win Deals". Michael Kelley, Partner at Parker Poe moderated a discussion between Joseph Dunn, Managing Director at Fortress Investment Group, Adam Hudes, Partner at Vinson & Elkins, Sarah Johnson, Head of Litigation Investing team at D.E. Shaw & Co., and Ryan Stephen, Co-Founder of Pine Valley Capital Partners.

The conversation began around structuring deals for alignment and success. Sarah Johnson noted that it's difficult to achieve perfect alignment, but pricing deals with 'good scenarios' in mind can ensure that all parties are satisfied. Of course, deals are bespoke, so this is very difficult. Which is why D.E. Shaw models out scenarios and walks through them with the client - what is a good settlement, what is a satisfactory damages amount? Ensuring that all parties are all on the same page, which goes into the documentation so all parties can agree to the terms upfront.

Ryan Stephen noted that at Pine Valley they are more law firm focused. They operate like a credit shop, in that they protect downside vs. focus on upside. They look at their capital as a de-risking tool, which means there can be a misalignment if the law firm thinks that value must be proven right away so capital can get out the door. They look to ensure alignment with both the plaintiff and the law firm, such that we're on a similar page in terms of what's a good outcome and what's an outcome that we would not accept. Also understanding of what the law firm needs from an operational perspective. The lender wants to continuously be de-risked, but there is a blind spot there, if the lender de-risks too quickly and the law firm doesn't have the resources need to effectively try their cases. So we need to get on the same page regarding operational budgets.

Michael Kelley then brought up the extrinsic factor of time, to which Ryan Stephen agreed that time is the risk that everyone is dealing with in the space. It is difficult to know what defendants are thinking, how plaintiffs will respond and behave. Getting on the same page regarding a variety of outcomes is key. Lawyers, by necessity, are eternal optimists. Everything is high value and coming very soon. Most capital providers know that is just not how it plays out, because you need to make sure that in those edge scenarios the law firms need to be safe, and the capital providers need to be safe as well.

Adam Hudes then spoke to red flags around non-alignment. He pointed to less-than clear exit terms, referencing the Burford / Sysco dispute as a scenario they want to stay away from. When dealing with a funder that can't clarify exit terms at the outset, that is something that his firm walks away from. From a law firm perspective, cases seem to be never-ending, so law firms are increasingly calculate how can we best manage the duration of these cases, and they want funders to understand that and work with them. If a funder is too pushy, that is another red flag. If they're not willing to truly partner with the law firm, then they should probably part ways early.

Michael Kelley asked about the risk of migration of terms, from the time that the term sheet is proposed. Joseph Dunn answered that it depends on the counter party. In this asset class there isn't a one-size-fits-all process for doing deals. There's less of a market, there's less data, there's fewer intermediaries who have seen that exact deal happen 20 times and here's how it's done. So that lends itself to parties re-cutting terms more frequently than in other asset classes. The likelihood of that happening is driven as much by personalities than it is the economics of a deal.

Dunn added: "I've probably never done a transaction where we agreed with the counter party on the value of the financing. So I think it's more about calling the counter party's BS vs. simply structuring the assets. When we structure deals, we ask the counter party what their view of success is. Usually we disagree with that, and we explain that's more of a homerun, and then propose a more downside scenario. If both sides blindly accept the upside case, then you're not keeping people aligned on the downside."

Moneypenny and VoiceNation Appoint New US Head of Marketing


By Harry Moran |

Moneypenny and VoiceNation, leading virtual receptionist and phone answering providers, have appointed a new US Head of Marketing, Kris Altiere.  Kris joins with over 20 years experience in marketing, growing revenue and improving brand awareness for companies of all sizes from start ups to rebrands and merging companies, which she has done time after time with great success.

Kris has a proven track record in establishing the brands she works with as the trusted leaders in their area, with a well defined identity.  She is an award-winning integrated marketing communications strategist, specializing in connecting vision with innovative digital communication solutions to drive sales, build brand image, and secure customer loyalty. Her role at Moneypenny and VoiceNation will be to drive US awareness and further the growth and recognition of the US brands though strategic marketing strategies, further solidifying the value proposition and expanding into new markets.  

Richard Culberson, CEO at Moneypenny North Amercia comments: “We are delighted to welcome Kris to our award-winning company and are excited about the fantastic experience she will bring to Moneypenny and VoiceNation. She’s an excellent addition to our rapidly growing team and her experience and expertise will be invaluable as we continue to strengthen our brands in the US.” 

Kris comments: “I am really looking forward to joining the diverse and global team and utilizing my extensive background and expertise in Healthcare and Legal to further expand those areas within the US, while growing the existing client sectors.  I am excited be part of the Moneypenny and VoiceNation award winning culture and to help lead and grow our marketing team, as well as work with the amazing UK marketing teams, to help the business with our ambitious growth plans.”

About our market-leading brands

Moneypenny and VoiceNation are America’s leading virtual receptionist & phone answering providers offering 24/7 communication solutions. 

Collectively, Moneypenny and VoiceNation employ over 1,000 people handling millions of calls, chats and bespoke tech solutions for thousands of businesses of all shapes and sizes from sole traders right up to multinational corporations.

Read More

Rebecca Berrebi Interviews Steven Molo at LF Dealmakers

By John Freund |

Day two of the 7th Annual LF Dealmakers event featured a 30-min 1:1 interview session between Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, and Steven Molo, Founding Partner of MoloLamken. The discussion was titled "Deep Dive: The Ultimate Decision Point - Taking a Case to Trial."

Below are some key highlights from the Q&A:

RB: Various sources report that fewer than 1% of civil cases filed in court actually go to trial. So why should funders care about trial?

SM: It's the ultimate risk. You've funded the case and you're betting on the fact that it doesn't go to trial. If it does, your investment is at risk. If you pay attention to the case the entire time and treat it as though it may go to trial, you're more likely to get a settlement that is beneficial.

RB: How do you choose jury consultants, and what does that process look like?

SM: Some people think that the venue is the most important thing, and some are particularly skilled or experienced in certain types of cases and they've developed a lot of data over time. Each of those things come into play. People do different types of research - phone surveys (I'm not sure how valuable they really are), focus groups, min-trials or mock trials (I think the concept of this is overblown). It's really about coming up with a plan for the case, understanding the venue, and if it's a big enough case hiring multiple consultants. You should be informed by-but not imprisoned by-the research.

RB: How important is it to have a lead trial lawyer with subject matter expertise?

SM: What's important is trial advocacy. Who can go before a judge and jury and lead trial information forward, rather than just pounding them over the head with information. Having expertise is important, but you don't need to be the world's foremost expert to lead a trial.

RB: How important is the selection of local counsel when your primary trial team is in one location and the trial is out of town?

SM: A lot depends on the venue. Those who have funded patent cases in Texas, you know there are the usual players that line up on either side of the case, and that's how the process works. I think you can overweight that - this fear of 'getting homered' where the local judge is in the pocket of the local lawyer. It can work the other way too - that judge might not like that lawyer! The general rule we try to follow is 'get good local counsel.' Don't worry about being overshadowed by local counsel.

I've found that most judges around the country get a kick from having a lawyer from out of town come into their courtroom. It's something interesting and it's a break from their day to day. As long as that lawyer behaves themselves, it can become a positive situation.

RB: Trials obviously include witness, and often the outcome of a case can depend on the witness' performance. What can the funder do to ensure the witness' ability to perform?

SM: Obviously with privilege issues, you don't want to be in there preparing the witness. But you can assess somebody as a communicator, and there's no reason why you can't have a conversation with the plaintiff in the case to let them know what you think about this person.

Beyond that, you can impose a structure on witness preparations with counsel. Will it be a written Q&A, if so, that Q&A might have to be produced at trial. Also where will you do the preparation? We have some courtroom-like settings, and having someone sit in a conference room is not the same thing as having them sit in the witness box. Best to bring the witness into the courtroom so they can experience it before going into trial for the first time, which is a very stressful situation. Also structuring the timeline of the preparation, so it's not done the night before. Also getting an experienced lawyer in your firm to do the mock cross examination, so there is a tension there that wouldn't otherwise be there if they're being mock-crossed by someone they know and are familiar.

Setting up the structure beforehand is something funders can address without running into privilege concerns.