Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3353 Articles
Commercial

Chambers & Partners Release its Litigation Support Guide for 2023

The Chambers & Partners rankings provide an annual guide to the top firms in each region and practice area, as well as highlighting the established industry leaders alongside the rising stars to watch in these companies. This week, Chambers & Partners released its Chambers Litigation Support Guide for 2023, which includes rankings for over 250 individual practitioners and more than 340 firms, including practice areas such as litigation funding, forensic accounting, business intelligence and investigations, and PR and communications. In the Global-wide ranking covering litigation funding for international arbitration, Chambers ranked Harbour, LCM, Therium, Burford Capital, Fortress Investment Group and Omni Bridgeway as Band 1 firms. Nivalion, Parabellum Capital, and Profile Investment were also recognized as strong funders in Band 2. Chambers also provided rankings by region with guides available for Australia, Canada, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, South-East Asia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Within the most active markets such as the UK and US, Chambers provides guides to firms specifically involved with litigation funding for insolvency or for litigation funding brokers. All the rankings can be accessed through the Chambers Litigation Support Guide hub.
Consumer Special Features

Fair Pre-Settlement Funding – An Oxymoron or a Viable Alternative?

The following article was contributed by Julia DiCristofaro, program administrator at The Milestone Foundation. “I have a good client who is in need of pre-settlement funding, which I almost always advise against. But she is desperate, and this case will settle soon. Do you think you can help?” As program administrator of The Milestone Foundation, the only nonprofit providing pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs in need, I often hear this sentiment. Non-recourse, pre-settlement funding companies market themselves as quick cash options for plaintiffs who are awaiting their settlements.  It’s an easy lure for an individual who has undergone a catastrophic incident, one that has likely left them injured and unable to work, or facing mounting medical bills; someone who knows they will eventually receive a sum of money to live off of, but in the meantime, might not be able to afford groceries or rent. Pre-settlement funding, also referred to as litigation finance, has grown exponentially in the past decade and is now estimated to be a nine-figure industry. For many plaintiffs, this funding is a necessary lifeline to financially stay afloat as their case resolves. Yet, there are few regulations for this type of funding, often referred to as the “Wild West” of the lending industry. Murky contracts comprised of complex language, confusing terms, hidden fees, and complicated interest calculations are common features of these advances. When an individual is desperate to make ends meet, terms like “compounding interest,” “quarterly fees,” and “capped at three times the principal” fade into the background, as “cash in less than 24 hours,” “no credit checks,” and “if you don’t win your case, you don’t owe anything” catch their attention and provide a glimmer of hope. As many attorneys can attest, once a case settles and the payment is due to the lender, this lack of transparency often renders plaintiffs shocked to see that they now owe as much as $30,000 on the $10,000 advance they received. Plaintiffs can feel duped or betrayed, and oftentimes look to their attorneys to solve the problem by negotiating “haircuts” with the funder, or even waiving their own fees. An attorney practicing in New Mexico shared: “I had a client who recently received a $50,000 settlement. She owes $16,000 on a $5,000 advance she took out, and is panicking at how little money she’s actually going to receive. I think I am going to have to waive my fees on the case just to help her stay afloat.” It’s no wonder so many attorneys discourage their clients from taking these advances, though for many individuals, these funds are more critical now than ever. Plaintiffs have long been at a disadvantage when pursuing justice against deep-pocketed corporations that can make lowball offers in mediation, or await the time it takes to go in front of a jury. As with many facets of life, the Covid pandemic has played a role in shaping the civil justice landscape, as social distancing guidelines resulted in overloaded dockets and delayed court dates for civil cases. As a result, the advantage held by insurance companies and other defendants in personal injury cases has increased, as they continue to accept premiums and pay out less in settlements. Meanwhile, as government programs such as stimulus checks and eviction moratoriums expire, inflation continues to skyrocket, and savings dwindle, the majority of Americans are barely making ends meet; at the end of 2022, 64% of the U.S. population was living paycheck to paycheck, an increase from 61% in 2021 according to a recent LendingClub report. Much to the dismay of many experienced attorneys, these contrary factors - lengthened trial timelines and increased financial need - make non-recourse funding a necessary component of the civil litigation landscape. Given the oftentimes exploitative nature of non-recourse advances, many states have introduced legislation or enacted regulations to rein in the industry. For instance, in Colorado, some courts have voided or re-written individual litigation financing agreements as traditional loans subject to low-interest rate ceilings. While this helps plaintiffs avoid unfair and predatory rates, it also discourages many funders from assuming the risk that is inherent in non-recourse funding, leaving few options for these injured parties, who will then pressure their attorneys to settle their lawsuits – often to the detriment of their awards. Trade organizations such as The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) and American Legal Finance Association (ALFA), often lobby state legislatures to prevent restrictions on the litigation finance industry. They argue that the non-recourse nature of the lending requires their members to assume a high level of risk that justifies their practices, as the plaintiffs are only required to repay these advances using the proceeds from their lawsuit; in the instance of an unfavorable result, the lender does not recoup their advance. ARC states that they support legislation that “enacts robust consumer legal protection for consumer legal funding and maintains consumer access, because good legislation does both.” Both ARC and ALFA champion industry best practices and sponsor legislation to reflect these practices. ARC’s best practices range from recommending that contracts reflect all costs and fees - showing how much the consumer will owe every six months, and the maximum amount a provider may ever own of a recovery - to prohibiting attorneys from receiving referral fees or commissions from the companies their clients receive their funding from. To date, six states have enacted ARC-backed legislation, while other bills are being reviewed in states like Kansas and Rhode Island. While the activities undertaken by ARC and ALFA are adding regulatory measures to the industry, some might argue that they are not going as far as necessary to truly benefit plaintiffs who are utilizing this funding. Maximum payments and fees are listed in contracts, but they are generally not easily found on websites, making it difficult for plaintiffs to compare shops, or truly understand what they will owe until they go through the strenuous application and underwriting process. Additionally, these trade organizations do not make recommendations on interest rates or maximum repayment amounts, which enables their members to continue to charge exorbitant rates and fees. But that’s not to say there are no ethical lenders in the space. Some companies are instituting policies such as capping repayment amounts at two times the principal, offering advances with simple interest that is applied every six months, helping to identify government support, and introducing innovations like debit cards that enable borrowers to pay for basic necessities. Another viable alternative to unethical lending is The Milestone Foundation, formerly known as the Bairs Foundation, which was created six years ago to provide a plaintiff-focused option in the pre-litigation space. The only nonprofit providing low, simple interest pre-settlement advances, the foundation has helped more than 600 plaintiffs by advancing more than $4.8 million and is looking to expand its reach to serve more clients across the country. Steven Shapiro, partner at Ogborn Mihm LLP in Colorado, has seen firsthand the benefits, as well as the pitfalls, of pre-settlement funding. “My job as an attorney is to get my clients the award they deserve. If they don’t have the resources to pay their rent or buy their groceries, they are going to feel pressured to settle, and I won’t have the time I need to bring the case to a fair resolution.” Shapiro has at times seen clients with no alternative other than to take out advances with 30 to 40 percent interest rates; while painful at the time, these clients were able to see their cases through to a reasonable conclusion. He’s also seen The Milestone Foundation at work. He recounts his client Olga, a Russian-American woman disabled in a car accident, who was in need of funding. He referred her to The Milestone Foundation. “The foundation was able to provide Olga a reasonable advance at a reasonable rate, that enabled her to afford her living expenses for the duration of the case, which took about two years to settle and resulted in a seven-figure award. The contract was transparent and really the most wonderful thing. I would always opt to refer my clients to The Milestone Foundation rather than other lenders whose practices tend to be much more opaque.” While pre-settlement funding is often condemned by principled attorneys working to protect the best interests of their clients, ethical lenders like The Milestone Foundation are working to give the industry a new reputation. As the only nonprofit in the industry, The Milestone Foundation protects the interests of plaintiffs over profits, and hopes to inspire other entities to implement a similar approach toward pre-settlement funding.
Commercial Deals

IMN Announces Date for 2nd Annual Litigation Finance Forum in London

The Information Management Network (IMN) has announced the date for its 2nd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum, which will return to London on 19 October 2023. The event’s inaugural showing last year brought over 375 attendees together, representing senior executives from some of Europe’s leading funders, law firms, institutional investors and more. Along with the announcement of the date, IMN released the outline of the agenda for this year’s forum, with a wide variety of topics being covered across a full day of panel discussions and live Q&A. Recognizing the evolving discourse around litigation finance over the past year, this year’s conference will include a discussion on ‘Ethics, Disclosure, Regulation and Outside Equity Investments’ and a deep dive into ‘Tax Implications of Deal and Fund Structuring’. The sponsors for the 2023 event include Harbour Underwriting, Schulte Roth & Zabel, AON, the Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (CAMG), Factor Risk Management, and Exton Advisors. Those looking to attend the event are advised to register early, with Super Early Bird Registration being available until 25 August, with a discounted price of £895. To register for the event, click here.
Case Developments Commercial

Coinbase Scores Victory with Supreme Court Ruling on Federal Arbitration Act

Litigation Finance Journal recently reported that Coinbase became the first US-based cryptocurrency company to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. The June decision has been announced, and with a 5-4 majority in favor of Coinbase, the high court ruled "that an interlocutory appeal about one matter (arbitrability) bars the district court from proceeding on another (the merits)." CoinDesk says the ruling is a distinct legal victory for Coinbase, one that could impact future lawsuits against all companies in the United States. For over a century, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has been part of user agreements to protect corporations from risk and expense associated with court battles to resolve customer claims. The decision does not represent any high-court conclusions on cryptocurrencies, outside of Coinbase being one of the associated parties.   A lower court decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Coinbase's arbitration agreement approach. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit denied Coinbase's motion to halt hearings while appeal is in progress.  The Supreme Court's decision in favor of Coinbase effectively stays any trial proceedings while appeal is in progress. 
Case Developments Commercial

Malaysian Government Acknowledges Need for Legitimate Litigation Funding Whilst Calling for Accountability 

The ongoing saga of the Sulu heirs arbitration case against the Malaysian government, which stands out as one of the high-profile cases of litigation funding in an international dispute, continues to evolve. After the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the previous arbitral panel did not have jurisdiction to make its award, top officials from the Malaysian government have continued to speak in public about the perceived injustices of the arbitral process and the role that third-party litigation funding has played in it. An article by New Straits Times reports on the latest comments by Azalina Othman Said, a government minister for law and institutional reform, who continued to criticise the perceived failure of arbitrations and stated that "a strict code of ethics for arbitrators will cut any sham arbitration - that could go so far as to try to cripple sovereign nations - at its knees". Azalina also raised the issue of forum shopping, stating that claimants are able to do this and engage in an “endless pursuit” because “they are funded by a litigation fund with seemingly deep pockets and investors backing their pursuit.” In a separate interview with El País, Azalina Othman Said elaborated on her position regarding third-party funding and the need for more regulation of the practice, stating that whilst she appreciated there was a need for “legitimate funding”, it is also true that “there must also be accountability.” Regarding previous statements that the Malaysian government would pursue legal action against Therium for its role in funding the Sulu claimants, Azalina clarified that they were not threatening the funder, but if they find “an intention to subscribe to unlawful strategies or activities” then the government will “do what we need to do to defend our reputation.”
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Dutch Implementation of the EU Representative Actions Directive Sets Criteria for Litigation Funding

Analysis of new regulations which affect litigation funding in the European Union has largely focused on the negative impact of potential reforms that may be implemented as a result of the Voss Report. However, in the more immediate future, we will no doubt see how different countries within the EU will implement the Representative Action Directive, which may have an equally significant impact on the proliferation of third-party funding on the European continent. In a piece of analysis published in Lexology, Jeroen van Hezewijk, Jelle Drok, and Marco Vogels of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, analyse the Netherlands’ implementation of the Directive through the ‘Dutch Implementation Act’. Having entered into force on 25 June 2023, the Freshfields authors examine the scope of the Netherlands’ implementation, as well as its specific regulations around issues such as qualified entities and litigation funding. With regards to litigation funding, the authors note that the new act has expanded upon previous legislation that governed the criteria for third-party funding of collective actions. These include prohibitions on actions brought against “a defendant that is a competitor of the funder or against a defendant on which the funding provider is dependent.” From a disclosure and transparency standpoint, the implementation act requires that when funding is involved in cross-border representative actions, the qualified entity must disclose its funding source on its website. Further disclosure of information around third-party funding may also be requested.
Announcements Commercial Regulatory Issues

New report warns: Restrictions on legal finance would leave EU businesses and consumers more vulnerable

European businesses and consumers could be left without access to a vital financing tool providing access to justice, experts warn today.

A report by the International Legal Finance Association (”ILFA”), which analyses proposed regulation on legal finance recently endorsed by the European Parliament, warns that if implemented, this could create a legal environment in Europe that would prevent many meritorious cases from being pursued.

This would be to the detriment of businesses — including startups and SMEs — and consumers alike, and it would only grant a licence for wrongdoers to continue to harm EU citizens and smaller, less well-resourced SMEs.

Legal finance provides the necessary resources in what are often lengthy and expensive legal endeavours, which empowers consumers and businesses, large and small, to seek the remedy they are due. Many funded matters are “David vs. Goliath” in nature, in which a smaller company is engaged in litigation against a larger well-resourced adversary. For EU citizens, it has helped bring cases in Europe on behalf of individuals and collective rights’ claims against a number of corporate entities.

However, in October 2022, an own-initiative report from Member of the European Parliament (MEP)  Axel Voss made recommendations which would significantly undermine the availability of legal finance within the EU.

The proposal put forward by Axel Voss MEP would make it more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to mitigate risk and keep capital in their business, and for consumers to have the necessary resources to seek redress and defend their rights. It includes the introduction of a fee cap for funders and a controversial forced disclosure provision for claimants, all of which would drastically reduce the economic viability of legal finance.

Now, experts in legal finance, collective redress, and consumer rights speak out about the dangers of the EU turning Voss’ recommendations into law. ILFA challenges the assumptions in the Voss proposals, as follows:

  • Lawmakers across EU member states are already struggling to implement the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) - aimed at strengthening the collective interests of consumers and ensuring a right to redress via representative actions. Limiting legal finance risks undermining the positive steps being made to create a collective redress regime that works for consumers.

  • Legislating the recommendations of the Voss Report would embolden large companies to engage in intellectual property (IP) theft from Europe’s SMEs. Without legal finance, Europe’s SMEs cannot defend themselves against malfeasance by multinational corporations or well-resourced Chinese companies.

  • Legal finance could be a vital component in the future battles on data, artificial intelligence, and new technologies involving analysis of complex issues and new legal concepts which will require resourcing to ensure that the EU’s “Brussels Effect” is realised. There are currently few, if any, resources available to fund meritorious litigation with scant evidence in the Voss Report that public funding or bank loans could assist.

  • Legal finance is an emerging market in Europe. The steady growth of legal finance in Europe is not only beneficial to European companies and consumers, but to the European economy.  Sophisticated and well-established investors, including pension funds and institutional investors, are continuing to see investments in legal finance as a worthy addition to their portfolios, driving important investment into the European economy during turbulent times.

Gary Barnett, Executive Director of ILFA, says: “Legal finance empowers businesses, large and small, to mitigate risk and maintain sufficient capital so they can grow and innovate. Without access to this financing, many meritorious claims, including those brought by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers, would not go forward. Legal finance providers are experts in finding the most meritorious, and often important, cases that the courts need to hear and are willing to invest the time and money into issues that serve the public good.  The EU should be finding ways to increase access to this vital resource that benefits the EU legal system and its citizens.”

Prof. Dr. Ianika Tzankova, First European Chair of Mass Claim Dispute Resolution, partner at Birkway, says: “One of the big advantages of the Representative Actions Directive in my view, is that it explicitly recognises the importance of the principle of equality of arms, meaning a fair balance in the opportunities given to both parties. Legal finance takes seriously the idea that financial equality of arms is required for effective collective redress and consumer protection. In fact, without the availability of that funding source I doubt there would be any meaningful collective redress in the EU right now.”

Thomas Kohlmeier, Co-founder and co-CEO of Nivalion AG, a provider of Legal Finance Solutions in Europe, says: “The Rule of Law in Europe needs the support of funders who understand the law and are willing to share in the risk and invest in meritorious cases. The question that has not been answered to date is what happens to all those important cases that will go unheard in the courts if the special interests get their way? It seems almost cynical to restrict access to justice on the basis of unproven allegations and misunderstanding of key economic principles.”

The report is released as the deadline for European Member States to implement the Representative Actions Directive has passed on 25 June. The EU Commission will begin enforcement action against a number of member states given their failure to transpose the RAD after a two-year hiatus meaning important cases against corporate malfeasance could be jeopardised.

ILFA recommends that any further EU legislation should await the full implementation of RAD and comprehensive consultation with key stakeholders, such as consumer rights groups and SMEs Executive Agency, and ensure that any regulatory proposals are based on facts, data, and real-world experience.

Consumer rights experts are concerned that further legal finance regulation will affect the realisation of the Representative Actions Directive (‘RAD’), Europe’s first class action law.

The full report from ILFA, Resourcing the Rule of Law, is available here.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Law Professors Argues Funders are Not “Passive Partners” in Mass Tort Lawsuits

Critiques of third-party litigation funding tend to focus on two main issues: the perceived lack of transparency around funders’ involvement, and the potential for these funders to unduly influence the litigation process. A new academic paper suggests that a major issue is the involvement of litigation funding in mass tort lawsuits, arguing that funders will control the litigation in order to drive up their own financial returns whilst leaving the actual victims worse off. An article by Bloomberg Law features an interview with Samir Parikh of Lewis & Clark Law School, who recently published a paper entitled ‘Opaque Capital and Mass Tort Financing’ on the Yale Law Journal Forum.  In the interview, Parikh claims that there are no real restrictions on outside capital taking control of mass tort lawsuits, despite the fact that litigation funders almost unanimously assert that they do have control over the litigation process or on settlement decisions. Parikh’s essay states that funders are never “passive partners” and that the reason these investors are pursuing mass tort cases so actively, is because they are aiming “to dictate outcomes.” Parikh compares the situation to other investment markets, claiming that “it’s a playbook we’ve seen private equity funds run in distressed debt situations all the time. And the truth is it could be happening in cases that we don’t know about.” Parikh’s theory centers around his concept of “the Alchemist’s Inversion”, where funders will look to create mass tort cases without doing proper due diligence on all the claimants, then they will look to increase the value of the claims before dictating the timing and details of any settlement. Parikh believes that these kinds of situations already exist, but with the alleged danger posed to the actual claimants in mass torts, he argues that “even if it’s happening on a small scale, the point is the explosion of the practice should be anticipated.”
Announcements Commercial

Manolete Partners Releases Audited Results for FY23

Manolete (AIM:MANO), the leading UK-listed insolvency litigation financing company, today announces its audited results for the year ended 31 March 2023.  Steven Cooklin, Chief Executive Officer, commented: "The annual results for FY23 mask a picture of two very different six-month periods for the Company: the first half of the trading year was subdued, as the Company had only just begun to emerge from the ending, in April 2022, of the temporary suspension of certain important insolvency laws that the UK Government had instigated in June 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While normal insolvency laws resumed at the start of the financial year, there is always a natural time lag between insolvencies commencing and the associated litigation claims being referred to Manolete, as Liquidators and Administrators need time to conduct their regulatory investigations before they can assemble cases for consideration by us. The second half saw a strong resumption of the growth that the Company had exhibited prior to the pandemic, as the UK Insolvency Market returned to normal operations with a strong recovery in cases being referred to us.  Given the fact that we enjoyed only the latter six months of more "normal" trading, the results are highly commendable given the loss made in H1 and recovery in H2. We had a record number of 798 new case enquiries and a record number of 263 new case investments; gross cash receipts from completed cases were at a record level of £26.7m and a new record was also set with 193 cases being legally completed in the 12-month period. We ended the year with another record number of 351 live cases in progress and the Company returning to profitability in the second half. These positive KPIs have continued into the current FY24 - with signed cases for the first two months of FY24 being 154% higher than the first two trading months of the FY23. Consequently, we have added, and continue to add, to our expert in-house legal and financial analyst teams to address the increased level of demand for our insolvency litigation solutions. With prevalent headwinds of inflation and significantly higher interest rates facing the UK economy, the Company is well set for continued growth over the foreseeable future". Financial (statutory and non-statutory) highlights:
  •     Realised revenues on completed cases were £26.8m, an increase of 76% (FY22: £15.2m) although FY23 contained an exceptionally large funded case completion of which £4.9m was recorded in realised revenue (total settlement £9.5m).
  •     129% of total revenues represented by realised revenues on fully completed cases (FY22: 77%) offset by negative unrealised revenues.
  •     Increase in the valuation of the cartel cases contributed £1.2m to gross profit in FY23 (FY22: £5.1m).
  •     EBIT reduced by 159% to a loss of £(3.1)m (FY22: £5.3m) a result of pressure on valuations in H1 FY23 on existing cases and a single rare larger case loss at trial.
  •     The Company made a loss before tax of £(4.0)m (FY22: £4.5m profit).
  •     Gross cash receipts from completed cases were £26.7m, an increase of 72% (FY22: £15.5m).
  •     The Company's retained share of gross cash receipts from completed cases (after all legal costs and payments to Insolvent Estates) was £13.1m, an increase of 47% (FY22: £8.9m).
  •     Cash generated from operations (after all completed case costs and all overheads but before new case investments and taxation) was £8.0m (FY22: £4.4m).
  •     Gross cash of £0.6m and borrowings of £10.5m (FY22: £2.2m and £13.5m) as at 31 March 2023 and £14.5m unutilised funds available on the Revolving Credit Facility with HSBC.
  •     Final dividend of nil per share. 
Operational highlights:
  •     New case investments in UK insolvency cases, an increase of 65%: 263 in FY23 (FY22: 159).
  •     Based on unaudited internal management information: ROI of 125% and Money Multiple of 2.2x from 689 completed cases since inception
  •     Based on unaudited internal management information: 193 cases were completed in FY23 (FY22: 139 cases), with an average duration per case of 15.5 months (FY22: 13.2 months), generating a Money Multiple of 1.9x (FY22: 1.87) and an IRR of 131% (FY22: 132%)
  •     Average case duration across the full portfolio of 689 completed cases is 12.8 months
  •     29% increase in live cases: 351 in process as at 31 March 2023 (272 as at 31 March 2022)
A copy of the annual report and accounts will be available on the Company's website shortly and will be posted to shareholders in due course.
Consumer

Supporters of Louisiana Litigation Finance Disclosure Bill Discuss Route Forward After Governor’s Veto

Efforts to increase the amount of regulation around litigation financing within individual states has been on the rise throughout the last year, with state legislatures across the US introducing new legislation. A recent attempt in Louisiana, which placed a large emphasis on increasing transparency requirements for third-party funding, suffered a major setback as the Governor vetoed the bill which had been approved by the legislature. Reporting by the Louisiana Record provides an update on efforts by supporters of Senate Bill 196 to push forward with seeing these increased disclosure measures implemented. Lauren Hadden, general counsel for the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), stated that if the state legislature is able to reconvene later in June, “we would obviously love to see SB 196 among the list of bills taken up.”  However, as it is currently uncertain whether the legislature will come back for a veto-override session, Hadden suggested that the bill’s supporters “stand ready to work with all interested parties to once again develop legislation that addresses this issue during next year’s legislative session.” Hadden argued that SB-196 was not an attempt to outlaw or restrict third-party litigation funding, instead it was designed to be “a balanced transparency measure that would have simply balanced the ledger in litigation.” The decision as to whether or not the legislature will hold a veto-override session will likely not be motivated by the litigation financing bill itself, as Republican lawmakers in the legislature have discussed it primarily in relation to the Governor’s plans to veto a more contentious bill passed by House Republicans.
Announcements Commercial

New research offers inside look at how businesses are managing litigation in uncertain economy

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new independent research on how in-house lawyers are adjusting their strategies in a period of sustained uncertainty. Businesses are seeking to manage risks and costs, and in turn, legal departments—and the outside law firms that work with them—have the opportunity to position themselves as part of the solution, with legal finance expected to play a role.

To better understand how macroeconomic trends impact senior in-house lawyers’ thinking about litigation, managing risk and their expectations for their law firm partners, Burford commissioned independent research that was conducted via extensive one-on-one interviews with 66 GCs, heads of litigation and other senior lawyers responsible for litigation at companies in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia.

Nearly three in four (74%) senior in-house lawyers expect to see an increase in the volume of disputes over the next two years due to the current geopolitical, economic and regulatory environment. Four in five (80%) say the current economic uncertainty will have knock-on effects for the legal department. Not surprisingly, a solid majority (62%) expect their law firms to offer more cost and risk-sharing solutions, and over half (51%) expect their firms to be knowledgeable about legal finance.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “We at Burford have been at the forefront of legal finance since 2009, working with lawyers in good and bad economic times. What remains constant is that in-house lawyers are always looking for ways to maximize corporate value and share risk. Burford’s latest research confirms that legal finance has taken on greater importance for businesses, especially as uncertainty in the global economy remains. We stand ready to partner with clients to solve their pressing needs, and to equip their outside counsel to be as nimble and innovative as their clients expect.”

Key findings from the research include:

  • The economy is increasing the volume and potential budget challenges of commercial litigation and arbitration.
    • Senior in-house lawyers expect to see an increase in the frequency of commercial disputes in the next two years, and the economy is exacerbating the challenges in-house lawyers face in paying for litigation and arbitration.
    • Cost causes some businesses to forgo meritorious claims and awards, while others are becoming more proactive in safeguarding claims as valuable business assets.
      • “[I]n an economic downturn, we may not be as motivated to pursue some litigation or transactional matters without creative billing options. Law firms want to be sticky with their clients, and companies are increasingly narrowing down who they work with to add more favorable terms with a select group of firms,” said an associate general counsel of a media and entertainment corporation.
  • GCs believe it is important for the legal department to show it can not only manage costs, but also add value to the business.
    • Cash flow and liquidity remain very important factors for GCs when they consider pursuing meritorious claims.
    • While GCs don’t use quantitative financial modeling of commercial claims, most say it would be valuable to be able to predict potential returns.
    • The availability of legal finance increasingly plays a role in deciding whether or not to pursue meritorious litigation or arbitration claims.
      • “[Legal finance] gave the CFO the opportunity to time recoveries as he needed them and use that funding to invest in the company,” said a general counsel of a global food and beverage company.
      • “I have explored the use of legal finance and would do so again. The liquidity aspect is a big needle-mover for many companies, especially because it could provoke a settlement earlier, bring in money earlier and de-risk litigation,” said corporate counsel and director of a global retail corporation.
  • GCs expect more financial innovation from outside counsel.
    • GCs expect their law firms to offer more cost and risk-sharing solutions, particularly in a down economy, which also means that law firms are expected to be knowledgeable about legal finance.
      • “I want my outside counsel to be aware of and advise on every option available to us in setting a strategy,” said a chief litigation counsel of a manufacturing corporation.

The 2023 GC Survey can be downloaded on Burford’s website. Extensive one-on-one interviews were conducted by phone between March and May 2023 by Ari Kaplan Advisors.

About Burford Capital

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

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

Case Developments Commercial

Dieselgate Claims Demonstrate Power of Litigation Financing

Consumers who have been the victim of corporate negligence or fraudulent practices by large multinationals have always been at a disadvantage when it comes to seeking justice, overwhelmed by the sheer scale of legal and financial resources that companies have in reserve. However, recent years have demonstrated that litigation funding can make a significant impact in leveling the playing field between consumers and corporations. In a blog post on LinkedIn by Sparkle Capital Limited, a UK litigation funder, this exact dynamic is explored in relation to the ‘Dieselgate’ emissions scandal which has illustrated the power of litigation financing. The article highlights the staggering number of consumers that approached law firms in the UK to pursue claims against vehicle manufacturers, noting that without third-party funding, very few of these claims against well-resourced companies could have been pursued.  Sparkle Capital goes on to point out that these partnerships between funders, law firms and claimants has achieved notable progress in securing compensation for consumers, with manufacturers forced to reach significant settlement agreements in the face of these funded claims. They also suggest that the successes of the Dieselgate claims lay out a perfect example for how litigation funding can be used in future situations where a very high volume of consumers are looking to bring claims against multiple large corporations.
Commercial Legal Innovation

Using Litigation Funding to Protect Company Value

Undertaking litigation poses many risks for small and medium-sized companies that are publicly traded, not only from the specific financial risk that comes from the costly litigation process, but also the impact it can have on the business’ reputation and the knock-on effects on the share price. However, one law firm argues that litigation funding may be able to offer remedial support when it comes to the share price, and offer value to a company beyond the simple provision of capital to fight any lawsuit. In a piece of analysis on The Financial Times, Gowling WLG looks at the ways litigation financing may be able to support growing companies that are concerned about the impact of litigation on company value. Highlighting its recent study conducted in partnership with Scott Evans of London Business School: ‘Taking AIM: how litigation can strike company value’, Gowling WLG states that even the announcement of litigation negatively affects a company’s share price by -5% on average. Whilst the average negative decline is highest for defendants at -6.1%, claimants are not immune to this effect and also suffer, with an average decline of -3.5%. The article goes on to explain that litigation funding can be a very useful tool to alleviate these negative effects, as third-party financing ensures that businesses can pursue meritorious litigation to completion. Most importantly, the securing of litigation financing can demonstrate to the market that the litigation being undertaken is worthy of outside backing, as the third-party funder will have completed due diligence to ensure legal merit, and has a viable financial resolution.  Behind these specific benefits, Emma Carr, commercial litigation and litigation funding partner at Gowling WLG, reinforces the principle that third-party funding is “a useful tool in helping to alleviate the pressures that businesses are now under, to try and shore up their legal expenditure.”
Announcements Consumer

Golden Pear Upsizes Corporate Note to $67.2 Million

Golden Pear Funding (Golden Pear), a national leader in pre-settlement legal funding, announced the upsizing to $67.2 million of its existing corporate notes. The incremental capital raise was assigned a BBB rating by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (NRSRO) and follows the Company's successful corporate note issuance announced in January 2022. Proceeds from the upsize will be used to repay subordinated debt and support additional growth of the business. Since inception, Golden Pear has funded nearly $1 billion in aggregate to more than 70,000 clients nationwide. "Golden Pear continues to demonstrate significant momentum and has completed this transaction to further our ability to serve the consumer litigation marketplace," said Gary Amos, Chief Executive Officer of Golden Pear. "We greatly appreciate the continued support of our institutional investor base, which recognizes the resilience of our business and our strong financial position." Daniel Amsellem, Chief Financial Officer of Golden Pear, added, "Our demonstrated access to institutional capital in a difficult credit environment is a strategic advantage, as we further pursue market opportunities in a disciplined and profitable manner. These notes complement our asset-backed debt to provide us with an efficient capital structure at a competitive cost of capital." Brean Capital, LLC served as the Company's exclusive financial advisor and sole placement agent in connection with the transaction. About Golden Pear Funding Founded in 2008, Golden Pear is one of the largest specialty finance companies in the United States funding legal matters and purchasing medical receivables from physicians and medical centers. The Company empowers its clients to navigate the legal system and provides them with financial solutions that work. Golden Pear is backed by a partnership of several private equity firms that allow for the stability and continued institutional growth of the firm. For additional information about the Company, visit https://goldenpearfunding.com.
Announcements Commercial People Moves

Apex Litigation Finance appoint Chris Thenabadu and Stephen Caldecott

Litigation funding specialists Apex Litigation Finance have announced the appointment of two new Legal team members: Chris Thenabadu joining as Senior Case Underwriter, and Stephen Caldecott joining as a Case Underwriter. Chris and Stephen joined the Apex team this month. Chris brings many years of experience in the after-the-event insurance and litigation funding markets and will lead the team focused on reviewing new cases and the management of existing risks. Stephen has an insolvency litigation background and will further strengthen Apex’s ability to support the litigation funding needs of the insolvency sector.

Chris Thenabadu

Since 2007, Chris has dedicated his professional career to becoming an expert underwriter in ATE insurance. After qualifying as a solicitor and gaining experience in litigation funding and brokerage for ATE and M&A markets, he was appointed to high-level positions within two of the most prominent ATE insurers. This has allowed Chris to create strong relationships with many UK-based brokers, barristers, and law firms. Chris Thenabadu says: “I specialise in various commercial litigation cases and am known as one of the most competent underwriters in the UK for insolvency and professional negligence cases. I pride myself on being able to apply my considerable market experience to take a pragmatic and commercial approach to the structure of litigation finance risks. I look forward to leading the team at Apex Litigation Finance.”

Stephen Caldecott

Stephen has worked within the insolvency profession since 2000; as an experienced insolvency investigator, Stephen is trained in identifying, assessing, and pursuing potential legal claims in all forms of formal insolvency cases. Stephen’s experience in insolvency litigation is a significant asset to Apex, as it furthers its ability to meet the litigation funding needs of the insolvency market. Stephen Caldecott says: “I bring a wealth of knowledge and experience in all areas of insolvency litigation and will aid Apex in delivering excellent litigation funding solutions to the insolvency sector. My litigation experience, coupled with the gut instinct of a born investigator, will help me to understand and support the needs of Apex clients. I am looking forward to working with the team at Apex”. Apex CEO Maurice Power says: “It’s a pleasure to have Chris and Stephen joining our team. Both their experience and expertise are perfect for their roles, and we know that they will add huge value to our business and our clients. With Apex’s focus of providing litigation funding solutions to small/mid-size commercial claims, the addition of Chris and Stephen will further enhance Apex’s ability to provide access to justice to many more meritorious claimants.” Head of Legal, Stephen Allinson added “I am delighted to welcome Chris and Stephen to our business and very much look forward to working with them. The litigation funding market is developing apace, and I really believe Apex is in an excellent position to build on its already well-established reputation. With Chris and Stephen, we shall be able to respond even more quickly to all enquiries and work very positively with all professional sectors.” Apex is constantly looking to expand its team and is open to hearing from candidates with diverse expertise, from legal to insolvency, litigation funding, AI development, and business development. Having previous experience with litigation funding is optional, as Apex will evaluate an individual’s skillset to see if they can benefit. Interested applicants are asked to contact Apex via enquiries@apexlitigationfinance.com by sending a current cv and details of why they would be ideal for Apex.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Insurance Broker Argues for Reform of ‘Largely Unregulated’ Funding Industry

Proposals for increased regulatory measures on litigation finance have become a more common sight in state legislatures across the United States, with such a bill being vetoed by the Louisiana governor last week. Among those calling for an increase in oversight of the practice, are members of the insurance industry. In an interview with Insurance Business, Casey Petersen, head of US casualty at McGill and Partners, explains the main concerns that insurers have around the growing influence of litigation funding in America. Petersen highlights that insurers perceive it to be “a largely unregulated industry that is growing at a rapid pace and is driving verdicts at trial”, and when combined with the wider inflationary pressures in the economy, is creating “a problem within the insurance industry that is unsustainable without regulation.” Petersen suggests that the main issue is the increasing regularity of so-called ‘nuclear verdicts’, which is in turn forcing carriers to accept costly settlements to avoid going to trial and facing such a verdict. He argues that whilst legislative attempts to impose tighter controls are encouraging, “none of these states are where they have the most verdict award issues.” Petersen emphasizes that a desire for increased regulation is not aimed at outlawing litigation funding, but instead these are measures which would create “a sound business practice for all.” Until such reforms are implemented, Petersen states that it’s imperative for insurers to educate their buyers and provide “risk management policies and procedures in order to create safe working environments for employees and to the general population.”
Case Developments Commercial

Canadian Court Denies Insolvent Company’s Request for Litigation Trust and Financing

Litigation funding has regularly been put forward as a powerful tool in the area of insolvency by providing the necessary capital to pursue litigation. However, a recent ruling from a Canadian court has demonstrated the need for those seeking such relief in this jurisdiction to provide ample and appropriate evidence to support their requests. In a piece of analysis on Lexology, Kelly Bourassa, Keith Marlowe, and Tom Wagner of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, provide commentary on the recent Goldenkey Oil Inc. (Re) decision from the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. In this case, Goldenkey Oil was in insolvency, and sought court orders to create a litigation trust to transfer the rights of a lawsuit and to approve a financing arrangement to allow the litigation trustee to borrow up to C$3.2 million to finance the claim. However, after a defendant to the claim opposed these requests, Justice Michael J. Lema ruled that Goldenkey failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the requests for the litigation trust and financing were reasonable or appropriate under the remit of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). The authors of the analysis note that this ruling demonstrates that parties cannot expect relief to be granted on the ‘bare assertion that the relief sought is reasonable, appropriate, and furthers the objectives of the BIA’, without providing the necessary evidence.
Case Developments Commercial

Binance and Coinbase vs. the SEC

On June 5, 2023, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, for allegedly misleading investors and regulators while operating an unregistered exchange. One day later, the SEC sued the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United States, Coinbase, for similar allegations. Now, litigation financiers around the globe look on as top law firms organize to defend Binance and Coinbase against the SEC.  Bloomberg Law reports that Binance and Coinbase have tapped some of the United States' top law firms to defend their future to exchange nearly $120B in cryptocurrency token assets. The SEC claims that most of these tokens sum up to unregistered securities. Binance and Coinbase deny any wrongdoing.  Agencies such as Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Milbank, Latham & Watkins, Wilmer Hale and Sullivan & Cromwell are among those said to bank upwards of $50M - $100M in legal fees for Binance's and Coinbase's defense against the SEC's recent actions. Sullivan & Cromwell is reported to have billed over $80M in fees associated with the FTX Chapter 11 bankruptcy litigation, according to court documents.    The SEC says that unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency violate US investor protection laws. Yet, former SEC leaders have joined Binance's defense team. Richard Grime (of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher) has been hired by Binance. Mr. Grime formerly served as assistant director of the SEC's enforcement division. William McLucas (of Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr) formerly served as the SEC's enforcement director. Mr. McLucus has been hired by BAM Trading Services, the operator of Binance.US.  What does all of this mean for the litigation finance industry?  Experts suggest that private actions could be explored by litigation investors and their clients in the wake of the SEC's approach to cryptocurrency tokens being exchanged as unregistered securities. However, collectability remains a pertinent issue for litigation investors, as they consider whether to pursue crypto litigation funding. 
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

BURFORD CAPITAL ANNOUNCES PRIVATE OFFERING OF SENIOR NOTES

Burford Capital Limited ("Burford" or "Burford Capital"), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces the planned private offering of $400 million aggregate principal amount of senior notes due 2031 (the "Notes") by its indirect, wholly owned subsidiary, Burford Capital Global Finance LLC, subject to market and other conditions. The Notes will be guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by Burford Capital as well as Burford Capital Finance LLC and Burford Capital PLC, both indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of Burford Capital (such guarantees, together with the Notes, the "Securities"). Burford Capital intends to use the net proceeds from the offering of the Securities for general corporate purposes, including the potential repayment or retirement of existing indebtedness. The Securities have not been, and will not be, registered under the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or the laws of any other jurisdiction and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, US persons absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration under the Securities Act or any applicable state securities laws. The Securities will be offered only to persons reasonably believed to be "Qualified Institutional Buyers" within the meaning of Rule 144A under the Securities Act or non-US persons outside the United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act, in each case, who are "Qualified Purchasers" as defined in Section (2)(a)(51)(A) under the US Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.
Consumer

Louisiana Governor Vetoes Third-Party Funding Disclosure Bill

The first half of 2023 has been notable for the frequent appearance in states across the US of legislation seeking to increase the regulatory oversight and scrutiny of third-party litigation funding. Whilst some bills have found success in states like Montana, just last week, one of the most ambitious bills seeking to impose disclosure requirements was vetoed in Louisiana. Reporting in Bloomberg Law provides the details on Thursday’s announcement from Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, that he decided to veto Senate Bill 169. The draft bill had gone further than similar legislative attempts in other states, having required those involved in third-party funding to disclose a copy of their funding agreement. In his veto letter, Governor Edwards explained his reasoning, and stated that the bill “is clearly a pretense designed to gain a litigation advantage under the guise of promoting transparency in litigation and protecting national security.” He also highlighted that these measures would create an imbalance in the judicial system, as “the bill only requires plaintiffs to unilaterally disclose their commercial legal financing arrangements.” The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Barrow Peacock expressed disappointment that the Governor had not reached out to discuss the legislation with him, and will be considering whether to attempt to override the veto. However, Gary Barnett of the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), praised Governor Edwards’ actions and argued the veto would protect Louisiana companies “from losing a vital financing tool used to mitigate risk and maintain sufficient operating capital in their business.”
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Nivalion Receives License from Swiss Regulator

As the litigation finance market continues to grow and mature, established funders are keen to set themselves apart from newer startup funders, with recognition by official regulators playing an important role.   An article in finews.com reveals that the Swiss litigation funder Nivalion has received its license as an administrator of collective assets from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). This license allows Nivalion to manage these collective assets, whilst also providing risk management for investments, and being able to offer shares in litigation financing investments to both professional and institutional investors in Switzerland. Nivalion’s CEO Marcel Wegmueller stated that this was ‘an important milestone’ for the litigation finance company, as it is the first funder to receive such a license from FINMA. This new access to institutional investors in Switzerland will allow Nivalion to tap into a capital pool that other funders are not currently able to access in the country.  The article also states that Nivalion plans to obtain additional fund distribution licenses in other jurisdictions, including Germany.
Announcements Consumer

Upcoming Webinar on Litigation Funding

One of the more important issues today concerning litigation in America is funding. Whether it be high verdicts, claim value drivers, or fraudulent claims, we are all affected. Vince Gerbino founding partner of Bruno, Gerbino, Soriano and Aitken, will moderate the webinar's distinguished panel that will provide insight into this important concern from a broad range of perspectives. We will hear from Dennis Kass regarding his experiences with verdicts and claim values. From Eric Schuller with his industry perspective. From Matt Lehman concerning regulatory efforts and finally from Kenneth Klein, a law professor and author with his consumer-based research perspective. Do not miss this very informative webinar, and please join us to learn and understand better the growing world of litigation funding and see the good, the bad, and the ugly side of it all. We look forward to seeing everyone on July 20, 2023, at 2 pm EST.
Here is the link to register. It is free to attend.
Announcements Case Developments

Resolution of Investment for LCM

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specializing in dispute financing solutions internationally, announces a successful resolution on an investment forming part of LCM’s Fund I portfolio of investments.

Successful Award in Arbitration Investment

LCM’s investment and funding related to a dispute in London Court of International Arbitration proceedings. LCM provided funding and support to the claimant in those proceedings, which recently received an award in its favor. The subject matter, findings and funding terms remain subject to confidentiality.

Initially, the investment was expected to complete within a short time frame from the commencement of funding, however, the matter was delayed due to a number of external factors. This protraction enhanced the returns to LCM and Fund I investors, details of which are highlighted in the table below:

*AUD$mInvestment performanceLCM performance metricsFund I performance metrics
Invested capital9.22.36.9
Investment return36.79.227.5
Success fee21.75.416.3
Total revenue67.616.950.7
ROIC on investment635%635%635%
Performance fee*-15.1(15.1)
Gross profit58.429.728.7
ROIC after performance fees635%1291%416%

*The investment returns are subject to change based on the prevailing FX rate and timing of distribution

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: “The Resolution of this investment demonstrates two important features of LCM’s business and its investment strategy.  First, it validates the skillset of our investment managers in undertaking a rigorous due diligence exercise and accurately predicting the final outcome of a large and complex commercial dispute resolved through arbitration.  Secondly, it is an example of an investment which we had originally expected to resolve in a prior financial period.  The return metrics generated by this investment clearly demonstrate how returns are enhanced notwithstanding a delayed resolution.  Not only were we extremely happy with the outstanding investment returns, but also LCM’s funded party was grateful for the financial support beyond the originally contemplated investment period.”

Enquiries

Litigation Capital Managementc/o Tavistock PR
Patrick Moloney, Chief Executive Officer
  
Canaccord (Nomad and Joint Broker) Tel: 020 7523 8000
Bobbie Hilliam
  
Investec Bank plc (Joint Broker)Tel: 020 7597 5970
David Anderson 
  
Tavistock PRTel: 020 7920 3150
Tim Pearsonlcm@tavistock.co.uk
Katie Hopkins 

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 revenue 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

Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Digital Event on Litigation Funding and Legal Insurance

Wednesday, June 14th, LFJ hosted a panel of Legal Insurance experts who discussed pertinent issues regarding the intersection of litigation funding and legal insurance. The expert panel included: Stephen Kyriacou, Jr. (SK), Managing Director and Senior Lawyer, Aon, Boris Ziser (BZ), Partner, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Rocco Pirozzolo (RP), Managing Director and Underwriting Director,  Harbour Underwriting, and Ross Weiner (RW), Legal Director, Certum Group. The panel was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC. Below are some key takeaways from the digital event: RB: How has the ATE insurance market evolved over time? And what should we expect going forward? RP: When after-the-event began, it was a product of England and Wales. It is now a product used around the world. But, its origins stem from a change in the law in England and Wales, where the purpose of the legislation was to save public money on certain types of cases.  So, its origins go back to April 2000. It was originally being used for personal injury and clinical negligence cases. It then started to stem out into insolvency disputes and commercial disputes. In the early years, its limits were quite modest. RB: Let's talk about what other types of insurance have evolved and what other types of solutions we can offer litigation finance clients, including law firms, litigants and funders. SK: Aon's litigation risk group offers a number of different solutions that are of interest to litigation funders, their funded counter-parties that are actually litigating these cases, and the lawyers that are litigating funded cases as well. At the top of the call we talked about judgment preservation insurance, which I'll refer to as JPI. Essentially, JPI is taking a judgment that has already been won, either an arbitration award, a trial verdict, maybe a summary judgment award, and insuring the risk that it gets reversed on appeal or the damages get reduced on appeal, or that there is a remand for a new trial. RW: We are seeing a lot in the duration risk space. I think one of the areas it is becoming more prevalent, is mass torts. Often the biggest question is how long will the risk take to play out? How long until individuals will get paid? And so the law firms who take on those cases for a very long duration, they've got lenders that they are responding to, and they've got certain rates they are trying to reach. Insurance with a duration trigger can be very attractive in that space as well. For the lawyers here, one of the things that we have seen a fair amount of, and have been working on recently, is contingent fee, or what we call  'work in progress' or WIP insurance for lawyers. That has to do with law firms who take cases on contingency where there is a fair amount of risk involved that could be zeroed out if the case is meritorious. RB: How are law firms using these policies? And in what types of cases and portfolios and awards are you seeing these types of policies add value to the user?  BZ: We are seeing insurance for a lot of our transactions that include single event cases. It includes mass tort cases. It includes IP antitrust cases, breach of contract, trade secret theft, and others. I think we are seeing a hit on a big cross section of case types. In terms of how it is used, it actually is a very good interplay in how law firms use it. At the end of the day, having insurance on your transaction accomplishes a number of things. Number one, it covers downside risk, therefore potentially lowering the cost of funding or monetization that you might be looking at. But the other thing it does, particularly for the user of the insurance and the holder…is that it opens the universe to other lenders or investors. It not only provides protection on the downside of the investment (i.e. insurance), but it also enables you to create an instrument that benefits from a wrap from a single carrier.  RB: Let's talk about shifting risk. What steps can insurance providers take to ensure that law firms and funders are not merely shifting risk when looking to insure a claim?  RP: It's a great question. As an underwriter, adverse selection in cases is always the most critical concern for me, as I am going through it trying to discern the motive, and is it simply getting bad risk off the books and replacing it with insurance to guarantee an outcome, or is there something more going on here?  BZ: Fundamentally and obviously by definition you get a policy that covers some risk, so in that sense, you know undeniably it's risk shifting…I focus on what it's actually doing, which to me is really enabling law firms' clients, funders to finance this asset class more effectively…I look at it as financing, not necessarily just as a pure risk shifting exercise. Then, you might think about perhaps alignment of interest in some sense between funders and lawyers. RB: What are the markers of a case or portfolio that insurers look for when determining whether or not to provide insurance?  SK: We already talked about motivation and how crucially important that is. And, how we really need to kind of suss out whether there is any sort of adverse selection going on, which is usually pretty easy for our team at Aon. With respect to other considerations, on a single case judgment preservation insurance, for example, we are really looking at three things: One, likelihood of being affirmed. Two, likelihood of damage award reduction, and then if so, where damages may be reduced to. And then third, what is likely to happen in the case, both with respect to liability and with respect to damages, if the case gets remanded by the Appellate Court for a new trial. You can view the entire panel discussion here.
Commercial Deals

6th Annual LF Dealmakers Forum Announces Agenda

LF Dealmakers has announced the agenda for its 6th Annual LF Dealmakers Forum, which promises to cover all the latest developments and trends affecting the litigation finance industry. The event, which will return to NYC on September 26-28, will include topics such as ‘Rise of an Asset Class: Demystifying a Growing Secondaries Market’, ‘Opportunities at the Intersection of Funding, Mass Torts & ABS’, and ‘The Great Debate: Trust & Transparency in Litigation Finance’. Bringing together 275+ senior executives from across the litigation finance market, the LF Dealmakers Forum will include interactive sessions, a pre-event workshop on mass torts and funding, as well as a multitude of one-to-one meetings and networking events. Last year’s speaker roster included C-suite executives and thought leaders from the top funders, law firms and insurers at the heart of the US litigation funding industry. As the capacity is limited and following a sold-out 2022 event, Dealmakers encourages prospective attendees to register soon and is offering a $200 discount to those who register their place before July 18.  The sponsors of the 2023 LF Dealmakers Forum include Aon, CAC Speciality, Fabricant LLP, Longford Capital, and X Social Media.
Commercial Deals

Canadian Litigation Funding Market Has Strong Potential Despite Ongoing Challenges

Litigation funding continues to see wider adoption by claimants in a variety of disputes, however, there are jurisdictions that have yet to fully embrace third-party funding. One such country is Canada, where despite a supposedly favourable legal system and few major barriers to entry, we have not yet seen the meteoric growth visible in other jurisdictions such as the UK, US and Australia. An article in Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) examines Canada’s litigation funding industry, tracing its origin back to the funding of individual accident claims in the early 2000s, before the emergence of a wider market after the Hobsbawn v ATCO case in 2009. CDR notes that since then, we have seen the emergence of a small core of funders operating in Canada, including the likes of Bridgepoint, Omni Bridgeway and Nomos Capital. When looking at what factors are restricting the Canadian market’s growth, the ‘loser pays’ doctrine appears to be a prominent issue, along with the availability of public legal funding for group actions such as the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund.  Bridgepoint’s John Rossos highlights that ‘in the UK, litigation funders look for scenarios where ATE insurance is available” to offset the risk of adverse costs, compared to Canada, where such insurance products are relatively novel. Rossos suggests that there is still plenty of potential for the industry to grow, stating that “if we have a more developed ATE market and clearer rules governing litigation finance then that will stimulate greater funding.” Andrew Wilson KC of JSS Barristers highlights that due to the relative immaturity of the Canadian industry, “there is not as much competition as we would see in other jurisdictions, therefore pricing is not as efficient, and it is possible that funding for more complex and esoteric cases might not be available.” However, he believes that once more funders enter the market we will see “the cost come down, availability go up, and more tailored funding become more available.”
Case Developments Commercial

Plaintiff Voluntarily Reveals Third-Party Funding in Patent Lawsuit

Discussions around disclosure of litigation finance are now becoming a weekly occurrence, spurred on by developments in cases and rulings from courts across the US. However, whilst most of these discussions revolve around disclosure that is requested by defendants or ordered by the court, one patent infringement lawsuit has demonstrated that disclosure can also happen voluntarily. An article in Bloomberg Law highlights the case of SilcoTek Corporation v. Waters Corporation in Delaware, which saw the plaintiff voluntarily share the involvement of a third-party funder in its lawsuit. SilcoTek revealed that its lawsuit had received financial backing from Omni Bridgeway, but declined to specify the amount of capital provided due to its non-disclosure agreement with the funder.  Geoff White, SilcoTek’s general counsel, explained that this move is in line with SilcoTek’s business philosophy: “We are extremely open internally, and we’re frankly extremely open externally.” Despite the oft-quoted criticism that funders exert undue control on the litigation process, White rebuffed the idea that Omni Bridgeway was controlling the litigation, stating: “They are definitely not in control. They allow us to make all decisions.” Whilst Omni Bridgeway reportedly discussed the potential risks of disclosure with SilcoTek, such as the defendant exploiting it for unnecessary and costly discovery, the funder supported SilcoTek’s decision to disclose the information. Matt Harrison, co-chief investment officer at Omni Bridgeway, emphasized that the funder was not concerned about dealing with further discovery requests, as he believes that “the courts are pretty uniform in their rejection of this as discoverable information.”
Case Developments Commercial

Malaysian Prime Minister Threatens Legal Action Against Sulu Case Claimants, Arbitrator and Funder

As LFJ reported recently, one of the unique and high-profile cases of litigation funding being used in a case against a national government has taken another turn, as a Paris court ruled in favour of the Malaysian government and against the heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu. The ruling’s announcement was swiftly followed by rhetoric from the government that it would pursue punitive action against the plaintiffs and associated parties, which has once again increased in intensity. Reporting by The Malaysian Reserve reveals that Anwar Ibrahim, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, informed parliament that the government would take legal action against those who supported or collaborated with the Sulu claimants. Of particular note was his reference to third-party funding, stating that the government “will also continue to oppose any form of financing by third party litigation funders who support the abuse of the process initiated by those making the claims.” In his remarks, the Prime Minister explained that the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) were already investigating the individuals who brought the claim, the arbitrator and other parties connected to the claim ‘under Section 124K of the Penal Code for the offense of sabotage.’ Referencing the initial arbitral award that is now likely to be overturned by the Paris court, Prime Minister Ibrahim argued that all the awards had violated the core principles of ‘diplomatic immunity, jurisdictional immunity and sovereignty.’
Announcements Commercial

Burford Capital Reports First Quarter 2023 Financial Results

Burford Capital Limited ("Burford"), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces its unaudited financial results at and for the three months ended March 31, 2023 ("1Q23").1 Burford's report on Form 6-K for 1Q23, including unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements (the "1Q23 Quarterly Report"), is available on the Burford Capital website at http://investors.burfordcapital.com. Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive Officer of Burford Capital, commented: "We saw continued positive momentum in the first quarter of 2023 in the progression of our portfolio as court activity and legal processes further normalized in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. The breadth of the case activity pick-up was reflected in capital provision income, excluding our YPF-related assets, more than doubling to $185 million compared to 1Q22, comprising almost a sixfold increase in realized gains and 41% growth in unrealized gains. Fair value gains arising from the favorable summary judgment ruling in our YPF-related assets contributed to an extraordinary first quarter for total revenues, driving growth in capital provision income of 238% to reach nearly $500 million. As an indicator of ongoing portfolio activity, an additional 12 case milestones have occurred since our May 16 update when we had observed 28 milestones and expected 61 more through the remainder of the year." 1 All 1Q23 figures in this announcement are unaudited and presented on a consolidated basis in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles in the United States ("US GAAP"), unless otherwise stated. Definitions, reconciliations and information additional to those set forth in this announcement are available on the Burford Capital website and in the 1Q23 Quarterly Report (as defined above). In addition, Burford applied its revised valuation methodology for capital provision assets to its unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements at March 31, 2023 and for the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022 included in this announcement. As Burford has not previously issued quarterly financial statements, its unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2022 are not technically restated. 1Q23 highlights New business Group-wide new business
  • New commitments of $165 million, up 102% compared to 1Q22 (1Q22: $82 million)
  • Deployments of $129 million, up 1% compared to 1Q22 (1Q22: $128 million)
Burford-only capital provision-direct assets, representing assets capable of generating highest profits for our equity shareholders
  • New commitments of $101 million, up 130% compared to 1Q22 (1Q22: $44 million)
  • Deployments of $67 million, up 29% compared to 1Q22 (1Q22: $52 million)
Portfolio and liquidity
  • Group-wide portfolio grew to $6.6 billion at March 31, 2023 (December 31, 2022: $6.1 billion), due to significant fair value gains but also new deployments and undrawn commitments
  • Broad pick-up in portfolio activity, with capital provision income, excluding the YPF-related assets, more than doubling to $185 million compared to 1Q22
    • 464% increase in realized gains and 41% increase in unrealized gains compared to 1Q22
  • Fair value gains arising from the favorable summary judgment ruling in the YPF-related assets contributed to an extraordinary first quarter for total revenues
    • Burford-only carrying value of the YPF-related assets (both Petersen and Eton Park) increased to $1.0 billion at March 31, 2023 (December 31, 2022: $823 million)
  • Cumulative ROIC since inception from Burford-only capital provision-direct assets of 89% (December 31, 2022: 88%) and IRR of 29% (December 31, 2022: 29%)
  • Burford-only cash receipts of $97 million, up 66% compared to 1Q22 (1Q22: $59 million)
  • Burford-only cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities of $183 million at March 31, 2023 (December 31, 2022: $210 million)
    • Due from settlement of capital provision assets decreased 14% to $99 million at March 31, 2023 (December 31, 2022: $115 million, of which 17% was collected in cash in 1Q23)
Income
  • Total revenues increased 209% to $381 million (1Q22: $123 million), represented by a higher level of case activity and portfolio progression, including $192 million of fair value gains, net of third-party interests, in the YPF-related assets and $185 million of capital provision income excluding the YPF-related assets
  • Burford-only capital provision-direct realizations of $64 million (1Q22: $21 million) and realized gains of $36 million (1Q22: $10 million), with a single matter generating a realized gain of $27 million
  • Burford-only annualized capital provision-direct realized loss rate of 0.9% of average portfolio at cost in 1Q23 (2022: 1.0%)
  • Operating income increased 252% to $327 million (1Q22: $93 million), with significant growth in capital provision income compared to 1Q22, partially offset by third-party interests in the YPF-related assets fair value adjustments and higher total operating expenses due to increases in non-cash accruals in light of the positive performance of Burford's share price, the increase in the carrying value of the YPF-related assets and the increase in the carrying value of a legacy asset recovery matter
  • Net income attributable to Burford Capital Limited shareholders increased 361% to $259 million (1Q22: $56 million)
Net income per ordinary and diluted share of $1.17 (1Q22: $0.25)
Announcements Commercial

Stonward joins The European Litigation Funding Association (ELFA)

The European Litigation Funding Association (ELFA) is very pleased to announce that Stonward, a litigation funder focusing on Spain and Latin America, has joined ELFA, as the association now builds towards becoming the collective voice of the European Litigation Funding Industry. Guido Demarco, Director and Head of Legal Assets of Stonward, explained why it was important for the funder to become part of ELFA: “we are thrilled to announce our membership in the European Litigation Funding Association (ELFA), marking a significant milestone in our journey as a litigation funder based in Spain. Joining ELFA aligns perfectly with our commitment to excellence and the pursuit of justice within the legal industry.” Demarco added, “as a member of ELFA, we are eager to collaborate with like-minded professionals and industry leaders from across Europe. By uniting our strengths and expertise, we aim to drive positive change, foster transparency, and promote the highest standards of ethical litigation funding practices. Through our membership, we seek to contribute to the development of the litigation funding ecosystem in Spain and the broader European market, while raising awareness about this legal tool among legal experts and company managers. We believe that by working closely with ELFA, we can actively shape the future of litigation funding, advocate for its recognition as a valuable tool for access to justice, and support the growth of fair and effective dispute resolution mechanisms.” Deminor Partner and ELFA Board Member, Charles Demoulin, highlighted how pleased he and the other founding members of ELFA were, to welcome Stonward to ELFA: “My co-founders and I established ELFA established to serve as the European voice of the commercial litigation funding industry and we are immensely proud to start now welcoming on board funders from around Europe who are also keen to play a part in shaping the direction of the industry. We are extremely pleased to announce that Guido Demarco and Stonward are full members of ELFA and look forward with enthusiasm to their future contributions.” ELFA was founded by three leading litigation funders with a European footprint including Deminor, Nivalion AG, and Omni Bridgeway Limited. ELFA's current directors are Charles Demoulin (Chief Investment Officer, Deminor); Marcel Wegmüller (Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Nivalion AG); and Wieger Wielinga (Managing Director EMEA Omni Bridgeway), who will serve as ELFA's inaugural Chairman. The intention of the association is to be inclusive for all professional litigation funders of larger or smaller size. Demarco further explained what he and Stonward are keen to achieve by being members of ELFA: “our core focus remains on the Spanish market, however, we recognize the importance of collaboration and exchange of knowledge at a European level. By participating in ELFA's initiatives, events, and working groups, we intend to stay at the forefront of industry trends, legislative changes, and emerging best practices. This will enable us to better serve our clients, enhance our risk management capabilities, and further strengthen our commitment to providing tailored and innovative funding solutions. We are excited about the opportunities that lie ahead and the doors that our membership in ELFA open for all of us. Together with other fellow members, we are committed to advancing the field of litigation funding, fostering a culture of integrity, and ensuring access to justice for all.”  About ELFA: ELFA was founded by three leading litigation funders with a European footprint including Deminor, Nivalion AG, and Omni Bridgeway Limited. ELFA's current directors are Charles Demoulin (Chief Investment Officer, Deminor); Marcel Wegmüller (Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Nivalion AG); and Wieger Wielinga (Managing Director EMEA Omni Bridgeway), who will serve as ELFA's inaugural Chairman. The intention of the association is to be inclusive for all professional litigation funders of larger or smaller size. About Stonward: Stonward began operations in 2020, offering bespoke solutions to access legal finance, providing clients with access to capital for commercial litigation and arbitration, focusing on Spain and Latin America. Stonward advises clients to find the angle to their legal assets so that they can capitalize on strengths, offering tailored solutions to access legal finance. Stonward manages a portfolio of claims related to commercial cases, intellectual property, restructuring and insolvency, and antitrust infringements, including the truck cartel. In addition to Guido Demarco, Director and Head of Legal Assets, other key members of Stonward include, Armando Betancor, Blas González, and Chris Garvey, [members of the Board of Investments], and Rodrigo Olivares-Caminal, and Eduardo Frutos, who are Corporate Advisors to the company.