Litica, the leading ATE and litigation insurance provider, recently announced at the Annual International Litigation Finance Forum its expansion into Europe, with a new office in Cologne (Köln) Germany. Other offices include London UK and Sydney Australia, with further expansion in the coming months. Litica has appointed Ed Yell to lead this expansion. As Managing Director of Litica Europe GmbH, Ed is responsible for developing litigation risk opportunities across the European Economic Area (EEA), working extensively with litigation finance providers, brokers, law firms and in-house counsel teams. “Litica’s launch in Cologne was essential to ensure that we can offer a more efficient and focused solution to a rapidly growing European litigation finance market” – Ed Yell, Managing Director of Litica Europe GmbH. As the world's leading ATE and litigation insurance provider, Litica is on a mission to empower access to justice in the 21st century. The company strives to provide comprehensive litigation-focused solutions and products Key highlights:
Established in 2019, Litica was founded and is led by qualified lawyers and financial services professionals, Stephen Bolster ACII and Steve Ruffle.
The experienced in-house legal team has the largest number of legally trained underwriters in the market, with expertise stemming from prominent law firms and international litigation funders.
Litica has attracted the largest panel of insurers (company and Lloyd’s markets) and is permitted to underwrite policies globally.
Litica has provided over EUR €1bn in insurance capacity across a range of litigation & arbitration risks. Most litigation and arbitration case types being heard across the globe can be insured - from €25,000 defamation disputes to multi-billion-dollar class actions.
Underlining Litica’s expertise in the field of litigation, Litica has recently been ranked ‘Band 1 – Litigation Insurance Underwriters 2023’ by Chambers and Partners, with Steve Ruffle and Ed Yell recognised as ‘Band 1’ in the individual category; Eliza Finch was recognised as a ‘WWL Thought Leader - Third Party Funding’; and Stephen Bolster as a ‘Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance’. Razi Mireskandari, the Managing Partner and Head of the Dispute Resolution team at Simons Muirhead & Burton (SMB), was recently announced as Litica's new non-executive director.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling on litigation funding agreements (LFAs), industry observers have been keen to see how lawsuits with pending applications before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) would be treated. In a new judgement released today, we are seeing signs that the CAT may be taking a pragmatic approach to the issue of funding, whilst still allowing meritorious proceedings to move forward.An article in Reuters provides an update on the case of Mr Justin Gutmann v Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Limited, and Apple Retail UK Limited, as a CAT tribunal’s ruling granted the application for a collective proceedings order (CPO). The lawsuit, which sees Mr Gutmann acting as the proposed class representative (PCR), seeks to represent approximately 24 million consumers over a claim that Apple concealed battery issues with their iPhone products.The tribunal’s written judgement states that the ‘the requirements of a CPO are met in this case, subject to the resolution of the terms of funding.’ The issue of Mr Gutmann’s third-party funding arrangements were addressed earlier in the judgement’s introduction, with the tribunal noting that the PACCAR ruling raises issues ‘concerning the legality of the PCR’s funding arrangements.’The tribunal went on to highlight that Mr Gutmann has already ‘indicated that he may need to alter his funding arrangements and he is actively pursuing his options.’ Whilst the judgement noted that neither party had asked the CAT to ‘make a ruling on the current or proposed new funding arrangements’, it also emphasised that the certification for the proceeding was provisional and still ‘subject to further submissions as to funding arrangements.’In response to the CAT’s ruling, Apple referred back to a previous statement denying the allegations and categorically stating that the company “have never – and would never – do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades." Mr Gutmann, who is being represented by law firm Charles Lyndon, described it as “a major step towards consumer justice."In a post on LinkedIn, Eleanor Leedham, of counsel at Charles Lyndon, stated that “the regime may still be in its infancy but rulings like this demonstrate that it is working, and it is a vital system for protecting consumers from abuse by tech behemoths and providing damages where they have suffered loss.”
In a post on LinkedIn, Ben Herbert announced that he would be departing Law Finance Group (LFG) to take up a new role as partner and co-lead of the IP practice at Miller Barondess. Commenting on the move in a press release from Miller Barondess, Herbert stated:“I’m thrilled to join the talented team at Miller Barondess, a firm renowned for excellence inside and outside the courtroom. I look forward to helping build upon the firm’s strong track record of success, leveraging its capabilities to provide clients with exemplary service and sophisticated representation in the types of patent and trade secret matters I have focused on throughout my career.”Skip Miller, founding partner of Miller Barondess, stated that Herbert would be “instrumental in further expanding the firm’s IP practice.” Sasha Frid, also a founding partner of the firm, described Herbert as “a highly skilled and respected patent and technical trade secret litigator whose expertise will complement the capabilities of our IP team.”Herbert’s departure from LFG comes nearly a year after he joined the litigation funder, having spent the last 10 months leading LFG’s operations in Los Angeles originating new business, and underwriting LFG’s transactions and investments in IP litigation. Prior to joining LFG, Herbert spent over 10 years at Kirkland & Ellis, where he was also a partner in the firm’s intellectual property litigation group.
Debates over the role of third-party litigation funding have grown increasingly contentious over recent years, with interest groups and policymakers wading into the discussion with assertions that funders operate in the dark and have exerted control over litigation processes and outcomes. A new academic essay dives into this topic with renewed focus, offering an assessment of the current funding landscape and specifically highlighting the role of ‘opaque capital’ as an aggressive and chaotic force in the funding of torts.In an article published in Volume 133 of The Yale Law Forum, Samir D. Parikh, professor of law at the Lewis & Clark Law School, examines the relationship between ‘opaque capital and mass-tort financing,’ and the dangers that third-party funding may pose to mass torts. In the essay, he starts from the position that litigation funders ‘will never be passive partners,’ because ‘all the tools necessary for a financier to create and control a mass-tort case are available and unregulated.’ At the heart of Parikh’s paper is the idea of the ‘Alchemist’s Inversion’, which he describes as ‘the process of employing unethical and potentially illegal tactics to create, enhance, and marshal apparently low-value claims with the hope of turning them into gold.’ Whilst he is quick to emphasise that this kind of behaviour is not currently widespread among funders, he suggests that lessons can be learned from the actions of opaque financiers in other markets and that ‘recent cases demonstrate that the arsenal is available, and deployment is underway.’ In his examination of the funding market, Parikh separates third-party financiers into three types: dedicated, sporadic, and opaque capital. The ‘dedicated funder’ category encompasses the major litigation funders who have ‘an arguably transparent business model and willingness to engage in public debate about litigation finance.’ Parikh’s ‘sporadic funders’ are categorised as smaller players who operate less systematically, often focusing on smaller lawsuits such as personal-injury claims, and who only ‘receive public scrutiny only when they engage in some sort of malfeasance or unethical conduct.’ Most worrying to Parikh are the ‘opaque capital’ financiers, a group of ‘aggressive hedge funds and private-equity firms’ whose ‘chase for yield requires direct engagement in high-stakes, big-ticket disputes.’ He argues that these opaque funders are notable for their desire to increase their control over the outcome of litigation by ‘exerting leverage at each process point’, with a relationship between the funder and claimant which ‘allows clandestine maneuvering and influence that could undermine cases and litigants in unforeseen ways.’The rest of the article provides an analysis of how these funders ‘can create chaos in this space’, looking at various case studies and examples to argue that ‘creation and control are the governing dynamics.’ Whilst Parikh describes the article as ‘a primarily descriptive treatment in order to spotlight the challenges posed by opaque capital,’ he concludes by suggesting that it also shows the need for reform and the introduction of measures to ensure greater oversight of funder activities. He puts forward the idea that such proposals could include enhanced disclosure requirements for funding arrangements, introducing ‘a fee to file a claim’, as well as reforms to the ‘regulation of claims marshalling’ and ‘the ways courts and attorneys verify claims.The essay can be read in full here.
Omni Bridgeway is pleased to announce a substantial expansion of its operations in the UK with the addition of six individuals in London, bringing the total team to 11. All the new hires have significant experience in legal finance.Gian Kull joins as Regional Portfolio Manager for the UK and Senior Investment Manager and will oversee the origination and management of investments in the UK. Gian joins Omni Bridgeway from a UK-based global litigation funder where he was Chief Investment Officer. Prior to this, Gian was with Syz Capital in Zürich, where he led the build-out of a legal assets investment platform focused on litigation funding and law firm lending.Gian is joined by Investment Managers Simon Latham, Sean McGuiness, Andrew Roberts and Michael Taggart. With experience across commercial litigation funding and international arbitration, the group brings particular bench strength in competition disputes, collective redress, large-scale insolvencies, shareholder claims, offshore litigation and recovery, and sector-focused experience in infrastructure, energy and construction, among others. "Omni Bridgeway is the world's leading funder and these appointments solidify our position," notes Raymond van Hulst, Managing Director and CEO. "These experienced new hires bring further track record to the high-calibre team we already have in London. At a time when funding options in the UK market have been reducing significantly, Omni Bridgeway is increasing its commitment and presence," he continues. "With over three decades of experience – and our footprint and operations in 26 international markets – Omni Bridgeway remains the only funder to have global originating and funding capability."The team augments Omni Bridgeway's slate of industry veterans: seasoned investment team members Alistair Croft, Camilla Godman, and Mark Wells, former founding partner of Calunius Capital who recently joined the company as Global Head of Portfolio Management. The team is rounded out by senior business development and marketing professionals Sarah Glover (formerly Burford Capital) and Steven Savage, who joined from Woodsford last month."Collectively, the London team bring decades of funding industry experience," remarks Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer EMEA, Hannah van Roessel. "Omni Bridgeway is now even better positioned in the UK to provide on-the-ground resources and expertise for merits and enforcement funding across all types of disputes."Gian Kull concluded, "It's exciting to be leading the efforts for one of the world's top funders in such a key market for disputes funding. We are joining a highly respected team – it is strength building on strength. The quality of our combined team and the resources we can deploy will enable us to quickly deliver legal finance solutions to companies, law firms and their clients."ABOUT OMNI BRIDGEWAYOmni Bridgeway is the global leader in legal finance and risk management, including dispute and litigation finance from case inception to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. Listed on the ASX, Omni Bridgeway operates from 26 international locations.
One of the biggest stories in sports law over recent years has been the claim that current and former players in contact sports, such as American Football, are owed compensation for concussion injuries. However, even in one of the most high profile victories for this type of claim, it seems that the involvement of funders has led to ongoing disputes about the way in which settlements have been distributed.Reporting by Reuters details last Friday’s decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which dismissed Thrivest Specialty Funding’s appeal to intervene in a previous District Court ruling over the way settlements were paid out to individuals in the NFL concussion litigation.Thrivest, which now operates as Balanced Bridge Funding, argued that ‘the District Court is improperly administering the settlement in a manner adverse to its interests,’ because the ‘Funder Rules’ allowed for the NFL players to receive settlement payments directly rather than through their lawyers. Thrivest had previously moved to have the District Court change these rules in 2022, with the funder having cited at least two examples of players who had ‘received a direct settlement payout, and dissipated the proceeds without repaying Thrivest.’In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals panel rejected Thrivest’s argument that the District Court’s Funder Rules ‘amount to a substantive ruling that all third-party cash agreements are invalid’, describing the claim as ‘patently incorrect.’ It went on to state that ‘the Rules simply distribute funds in a particular way: directly to class members instead of through counsel,’ and that ‘Thrivest remains free to pursue a collection action.’ In what reads as a particularly damning final statement on Thrivest’s second argument that the Rules allow class members to avoid paying the funder, the panel said: ‘Put differently, it does not like the “particular way” the claims administrator is distributing funds to class members and would prefer a different method.’As LFJ reported in November 2021, this is not the first time that Thrivest’s involvement in the NFL concussion litigation has led to subsequent disputes.
As LFJ reported in July 2023, the interest in litigation stemming from the Camp Lejeune toxic water scandal has been consistently on the rise, as a combination of legal advertising and litigation funding are contributing to what may become one of the largest mass tort cases in US history. However, the tremendous amount of attention focused on these lawsuits is now turning into a double-edged sword, as skyrocketing numbers of fraudulent claims are coming to light.An article by Bloomberg provides an in-depth overview of reports that the Camp Lejeune case is becoming a magnet for false claims, with huge numbers of robocalls and a lack of due diligence from lawyers referring cases has led to a dramatic rise in the number of fraudulent attempts to file a claim. Mikal Watts, capital partner at Watts Guerra, revealed that his firm already has 6,000 Camp Lejeune clients and that whilst auditing referrals from other lawyers, they found hundreds of bogus claims including individuals who had been specifically recruited by call centers.As Bloomberg had previously reported earlier this year, the Camp Lejeune litigation has attracted almost $2 billion in litigation funding, as funders see the strong potential of returns in a case where the settlements are guaranteed by the government. Brian Roth, CEO of Rocade Capital, spoke to Bloomberg about this surge in fraudulent claims and aptly noted that in these situations, “an influx of capital invites greed.” Roth put the spotlight on bad-faith legal marketing companies, explaining that “where you have issues is when you have leads being marketed to multiple different buyers, you have call centers without oversight.” Driven by the government-approved payout scheme, Bloomberg confirmed from a Navy spokesperson that they had already received 117,000 claims by mid-October. All of these claims will have to be individually vetted by the Navy, but with the window to submit claims open until August 2024, the vetting required to verify each claim will likely lead to an incredibly protracted process. In the meantime, law firms representing clients in Camp Lejeune litigation will have to devote a large amount of time and resources to due-diligence when vetting new potential claimants.
Established in 2022 by Andrey Elinson, Inweasta has rapidly evolved into an international business with a robust presence in prominent cities such as Dubai, Hong Kong, and Istanbul. The company's range of services is both comprehensive and continuously expanding. Catering to the financial and industrial sectors, the company offers an extensive array of consulting, legal, and investment solutions. The group's core competencies encompass investment strategies, cross-border dispute resolution, litigation funding, and distressed asset management.Andrey Elinson's departure from A1 and his subsequent dedication to Inweasta signify more than just a shift in professional allegiance; It underscores his profound belief in the company's mission and its boundless potential. Elinson expressed: "As I embark on this new chapter with Inweasta, I'm driven by the wealth of knowledge and experience I've gained in executive roles. Inweasta, with its adept team and ambitious vision, provides the perfect platform to harness that expertise. Over the next five years, we aim to evolve Inweasta into a dynamic international powerhouse, leveraging our seasoned team to deliver cutting-edge solutions and services, setting new standards in our industry."Andrey Elinson's professional track record, spanning two decades, is a testament to his expertise in private equity, strategic business development, and corporate management. In 2018, Elinson became a managing partner at A1, a prominent private equity firm and international litigation funder. Preceding this, in 2014, he held the position of Director of Assets Management at the Alfa Group Consortium, a major Russian business entity. From 2007 to 2014, Andrey Elinson devoted seven years to Basic Element, one of Russia's largest industrial conglomerates, initially serving as the Director of Corporate Governance and Internal Control, and later advancing to the role of Deputy CEO.Throughout his career, Elinson held positions on the boards of directors of various prominent companies, including AlfaStrakhovaniye, Ingosstrakh, Rosvodokanal, and En+ Group. In 2016, Andrey Elinson became a Member of the Supervisory Board of X5 Retail Group, one of Russia's largest retail operators. However, in 2020, he retired as a member of the Supervisory Board of X5 Retail Group. He also served as a member of the supervisory board of the Alfa Group Consortium and A1 Investment Holding, all of which he departed from by 2020. His departure from A1 signifies his exit from all appointed roles, redirecting his focus exclusively to his personal investment enterprise. As the founder, Andrey Elinson dedicates special focus to Inweasta, ensuring a hands-on approach to its growth and success. In return, the company places substantial trust in Elinson's well-established reputation and the professionalism exhibited by the entire team. The Inweasta team has outlined ambitious strategic goals for the upcoming five years, harnessing decades of combined experience to pioneer new industry benchmarks and propel innovation forward.About InweastaInweasta is an international group of companies launched in 2022. The company specializes in investments, cross-border disputes resolution, litigation funding and distress assets management.Inweasta provides full range of services related to a resolution of complex disputes and situations:
Litigation Funding
Cross-border Litigation Management
Investments in Distressed Assets
Corporate Finance and Debts Restructuring
Inheritance Structuring and Protection
Mediation of Disputes
Having legal, financial, investments, security, PR and other competences in-house gives Inweasta the ability to work efficiently on complicated projects that require multiple competences being applied.
With this strategic addition to the team, LegalPay aims to reinforce its position as a dominant player in the legal finance industry, setting its sights on managing INR 50,000 crores worth of claims by the end of 2026. LegalPay, the largest player in the litigation funding industry in India, is proud to announce the appointment of Tanya Prasad as its new Chief Investment Officer (CIO), effective immediately. Prasad brings over 10 years of experience in cross-border litigation and international arbitration proceedings in the fields of international trade, construction disputes, energy, banking, and finance, as well as Investor-State disputes. She specialises in International Dispute Resolution and earned her LL.M. degree from the prestigious Humboldt University, Berlin. rings a wealth of experience from her previous roles at PwC, Karanjawala & Company, and MRP Advisory. She will be responsible for overseeing LegalPay’s investment strategy, portfolio management, and risk assessment. LegalPay has enjoyed unprecedented success in the Indian litigation funding market. Its achievements have garnered widespread attention from various international litigation funders, leading to strategic partnerships with many of them. “I welcome Tanya Prasad as our new Chief Investment Officer at LegalPay. Her extensive experience in litigations and expertise in arbitrations make her the ideal choice to lead our company’s growth in the dynamic field of litigation funding,” said Kundan Shahi, Founder & CEO of LegalPay. He further added, “Tanya Prasad’s appointment as CIO represents a pivotal moment in LegalPay’s journey. With her exceptional expertise, we are confident in our ability to scale new heights and continue making a positive impact in the legal finance industry.” Tanya Prasad commented: “I am excited to take on the new role of Chief Investment Officer and to fulfil all responsibilities that come with it. It’s a great honour for me to be in a position to steer the growth of LegalPay in the litigation funding ecosystem in India and to strive to make LegalPay a global player. It is also important to me to further the mission of LegalPay, which is- access to justice for all.” Furthermore, LegalPay plays a pivotal role in supporting companies undergoing insolvency by providing them with the necessary capital during such times.
Much of the commentary on the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR regarding litigation funding agreements (LFAs), has focused on the impact on litigation funders and law firms. However, it is also worth recognising that investors who provide the needed capital for these funding arrangements are also concerned about how their investments could be affected.A new insights article from Broadridge looks at the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision on institutional investors, offering an overview of the judgement itself and providing key takeaways for those investors who are currently engaged in LFAs. The leading takeaway from Broadridge is spelled out in clear terms: ‘do not panic.’ The fintech company argues that the Supreme Court’s ruling ‘is not going to turn the litigation funding market on its head in the UK’, with funders and law firms having been preparing in advance for this outcome. The article goes a step further and suggests that the decision may be beneficial for the industry in the long-term, providing ‘crucial guidance’ for the drafting of LFAs to avoid any questions of non-compliance or impropriety.Broadridge does note that any existing LFAs will be reviewed by funders and may require amending, but says that the degree of changes required will vary depending on the wording of each agreement. In addition, the piece emphasises that institutional investors do not need to be concerned about any proceedings where the litigation has been solely funded by the law firm itself.
Whilst developments in class actions and commercial litigation have dominated the headlines over the last month, the work of litigation funders involved in international arbitration proceedings continues to demonstrate the important role third-party funding can play.An insights piece by Andrew Stulce, vice president at Longford Capital, details the funder’s involvement in a complex international arbitration, providing funding for True Blue Development and its investors in a dispute with the government of Grenada. The claim brought before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) had begun in June 2021 after the Grenadian government allegedly ‘reneged on its obligations’ to True Blue during the development of a resort hotel near Grand Anse. The property developer then approached Longford Capital for additional funding to support its claim, with the ICSID tribunal having been notified of the third-party funding in May 2022. Stulce explains that “the opportunity to partner with these investors to pursue their international arbitration wasn’t just a matter of good business—providing capital so they could enforce their treaty rights with top-shelf legal representation was also the right thing to do.”With the additional funding secured, the claim continued forward, and by the summer of 2023 the two parties had entered settlement discussions, with the tribunal being notified on 31 August 2023 that True Blue and Grenada had reached a settlement agreement. The tribunal officially noted the discontinuance of the arbitration proceedings on 6 September 2023, with Longford explaining that the agreement would result in the Grenadian government acquiring ownership and finding a new developer to complete construction of the hotel.Stulce highlights that the settlement agreement “sets right a legal injustice that may not have been pursued without Longford’s funding,” and says that the funder is “gratified that we were able to support these claims and play an important role in resolving this dispute in a constructive way.”
As many litigation finance leaders emphasised at last week’s IMN conference, one of the priorities for the industry is to continue efforts to raise greater awareness and educate a wider audience about third-party funding. Whilst conferences produced by commercial providers are incredibly useful, it is important where possible for the industry to partner with educational institutions on these events.On Thursday October 26, the University of Chicago Law School’s Center on Law and Finance will be hosting its Conference on Litigation Finance, in partnership with Burford Capital and Alliant. The conference aims to provide a forum for debate around various issues with the agenda including panel discussions on: ‘the policy debate’, ‘the connections between insurance and litigation funding’, and ‘the challenges of litigation finance’.The one-day event has attracted a range of impressive speakers not only from litigation funders, but also top US law firms, insurers, academics, and court judges. Representatives from funders on the agenda include James Burnham from Vallecito Capital, as well as Christopher Catalano and Alyx Pattison of Burford Capital. Bringing the perspective of the law firms, Leonard Gail, founding partner of Massey & Gail, and Benjamin E. Waldin, partner at Eimer Stahl LLP, will also be speaking at the conference.For those readers who have followed the ongoing disputes over disclosure in litigation funding, the most notable name among the three judges speaking at the conference is Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Judge Connolly has become one of the most prominent names thanks to his push for increased transparency around funding arrangements in patent infringement lawsuits.
This past month has seen a high frequency of developments in Australian class actions, with judgements being handed down from the Federal Court, and new lawsuits being announced with the support of third-party funders. This trend is not abating as we enter the final days of October, with yet another favourable judgement handed down in a class action with its origins in the Covid-19 pandemic.An article by The Financial Times covers today’s judgement by Justice Angus Stewart in the case of Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Initial Trial) [2023] FCA 1280. Justice Stewart’s ruling found that Carnival, one of the world’s leading cruise operators, was liable to pay for Susan Karpik’s ‘out of pocket expenses in respect of her COVID-19 infection and adjustment disorder injuries’, after she contracted the respiratory disease aboard their ship, The Ruby Princess. The judge ruled that Carnival had ‘breached their duty of care in various respects’ in their handling of a Covid outbreak in March 2020, having failed to cancel the cruise, warn the passengers of the heightened infection risk, or take adequate measures to prevent the spread of infection. Whilst Justice Stewart found that Karpik’s claim for non-economic losses did not meet the legal threshold, and therefore did not award personal injury damages, Carnival was ordered to pay $4,423.48 plus interest to cover her out of pocket expenses for medical treatment. Mrs Karpik’s claim is part of a class action brought by Shine Lawyers and funded by Balance Legal Capital, representing over 1,000 individuals who were either passengers on Carnival’s ship or are relatives of passengers who died of coronavirus. Vicky Antzoulatos, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, praised the judge’s decision and argued that Carnival should now “do the right thing and compensate all the passengers rather than prolong the matter through further litigation”.
LegalMation, Inc., the market leader in Generative AI-driven solutions for high-volume litigation, today announced it has raised a $15 million Series A financing round led by the venture capital team at Aquiline Capital Partners LP, Aquiline Technology Growth ("Aquiline"), with continued participation from existing investors Motley Fool Ventures, REV Venture Partners, Key Venture Partners, Quick Set LLC, and Brentwood Investments.LegalMation has experienced rapid growth in demand for its Generative AI litigation response platform that provides the insurance and legal industries with clear productivity and cost savings. LegalMation's proprietary solutions enable legal professionals to respond to lawsuits, discovery requests, and related workflows using the client's own historical response data. In 2023, LegalMation's customers have already leveraged the platform to answer over 1.1 million discovery requests in over 30 state and federal jurisdictions.Demand for LegalMation's solutions has been boosted by labor shortages and inflationary pressures. For in-house counsel in particular, automating high-volume litigation and related tasks has become the number one solution to these challenges. Accordingly, insurance carriers and large enterprises have become LegalMation's predominant client base as they seek to increase efficiency and find ways to scale at the organizational level as they find ways to apply Generative AI solutions to their operations. Valued at over $200 billion, the LegalTech and InsurTech markets are increasingly expected to rely on AI and automation solutions in the coming years. LegalMation is well positioned to benefit as the litigation and insurance industries continue to transform. LegalMation has become the trusted partner to the nation's top insurance carriers, large enterprises such as Walmart, and numerous law firms such as Sheppard Mullin, Ogletree Deakins, Fisher Phillips, Nelson Mullins, Baker Donelson, and Jackson Lewis.With this new funding, LegalMation will deepen the functionality and breadth of its platform to support the growth of its rapidly evolving customer base. Additionally, the new funds will enable LegalMation to devote significant resources to build new end-to-end litigation workflow automation and analytic tools, all focused on the goal of resolving disputes faster, while improving accuracy, cost, and outcomes for its customers."We are thrilled to partner with Aquiline given their experience and ability to identify disruptive technology platforms across the insurance and legal ecosystems combined with an extensive network across both markets. We already had strong customer relationships with a few of Aquiline's strategic carrier investors and we look forward to expanding LegalMation's reach within these markets" said James M. Lee, LegalMation's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. "The need for AI automation tools to achieve financial goals has never been greater, especially with the macro-economic pressures falling on both large and small enterprises. This investment will allow LegalMation to accelerate its growth and realize our vision of becoming the most impactful technology partner to the insurance and legal industries.""The AI revolution has the potential to drive exponential productivity gains while allowing greater scalability. The legal and insurance industries are just beginning to adopt transformative technology solutions, having realized the potential to empower their highly skilled talent core" said Aquiline's Dante La Ruffa, Principal. "Aquiline has a track record in scaling SaaS companies and has made multiple investments in the LegalTech industry across our family of funds. We are thrilled to partner with LegalMation and believe they are uniquely positioned to supercharge the litigation support process as we know it today."About LegalMationLegalMation is a SaaS technology company led by a group of experienced litigators and technology specialists, dedicated to revolutionizing the practice of law through artificial intelligence aimed at legal departments of large corporates, insurance carriers, and law firms. LegalMation's ground-breaking generative AI platform dynamically produces fully formatted responsive pleadings, discovery requests and responses and other documents. The platform tailors the claims, allegations, and requests in the legal documents, incorporating jurisdictional requirements as well as the attorney's own style, and response strategy. For more information, visit https://www.legalmation.com.About Aquiline Technology GrowthAquiline Technology Growth ("ATG") seeks to invest in early and growth-stage technology companies that are bringing innovation to the insurance and financial services ecosystems. ATG is managed by Aquiline Capital Partners LP, a private investment firm based in New York and London that invests across financial services and technology. The ATG team has experience in technology and financial services and is supported by its colleagues at Aquiline, strategic partners, and an active group of industry Executive Advisors. For more information on ATG, visit http://www.aquiline.com.
Class actions often represent the best avenue for consumers looking to seek justice and some form of compensation from large companies who have harmed them. However, these claims are most effective when they are supported by third-party litigation funding, ensuring that these individuals can pursue legal redress without incurring financial risk.An article from Stuff.co.nz covers the recent filing of a class action against Toyota New Zealand over its sale of 35,000 vehicles since 2015, which allegedly contained a known fault in their diesel particulate filters (DPFs). The lawsuit brought by Shine Lawyers alleges that the defective vehicles provided customers with reduced performance, poor fuel efficiency and caused the vehicles to ‘emit white smoke’.Commenting on the class action, Shine Lawyers’ associate Hamish Davies explained that “owners of these vehicles spent thousands of dollars, in some cases, all of their savings and it’s pretty disappointing for them to now have to deal with what was a defective vehicle.” He highlighted that the defects in the diesel vehicles forced consumers to spend excessive amounts on fuel and “even in some cases loss of income when people missed work due to issues with the vehicle.”The class action is being funded by Court House Capital, with Davies highlighting that the outside financing “means that individuals don’t have to pay anything and they don’t have any risk when they sign up.”A spokesperson for Toyota New Zealand provided the following comment: “Toyota has been and remains committed to assisting any customer whose vehicle experiences a DPF issue and will continue to provide any related repairs free of charge. This has been our position to date, and we will defend the class action announced today. As this matter is now before the courts, we have no further comment.””As LFJ reported in October 2022, this is not the first time that one of Toyota’s local businesses has been hit with a lawsuit related to issues with its diesel vehicles, with Toyota Australia facing a $1 billion class action brought by Maddens Lawyers. The Australian class action lawsuit also received third-party funding, with that case being backed by Woodsford.
As we steadily approach the four-year mark since the COVID-19 outbreak began, it is clear that we have not yet seen all the long-term consequences of the pandemic play out. This is especially true when it comes to litigation that has been brought in relation to actions by governments or businesses in response to the pandemic, with a UK litigation funder indicating that it is increasing its activities in this area.An article by Legal Futures covers the recent announcement by Manolete Partners that it is looking to expand upon its pre-existing pilot scheme to bring cases related to Covid Bounce Back Loans (BBLs). In a trading update for the six months leading up to 30 September, the funder indicated that another UK bank is beginning a campaign to recover misused BBLs and will partner with Manolete.Manolete’s previous pilot programme with Barclays has provided funding for 81 BBL cases, with 33 of these receiving funds in the last six months, compared to 48 funded BBL claims in the final six months of the 2022 trading period. The funder also informed its shareholders that the cases had a noticeably shorter duration than the funder’s average timeline for funded litigation. Interestingly, Manolete also stated that the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling “has had no adverse impact, necessitating only very minor amendments to the standard terms of our funding agreements.”
The growth in trading platforms that cater to retail investors over recent years has significantly widened the market of individuals looking to trade investment products. However, the conduct of these platforms has come under increasing scrutiny and related legal action, with questions being raised around how they market and sell complex investment options to individuals who lack the resources and awareness of large institutional investors. According to reporting by Business News Australia, Piper Alderman is investigating a potential class action against International Capital Markets (IC Markets) over its sale of contracts for difference (CFDs) to retail investors in Australia. The claim will focus on “allegations of unconscionable conduct and misleading and deceptive conduct during the period September 2017 to March 2021” by IC Markets in its sale of CFD products to investors. Business News Australia’s reporting states that Piper Alderman is partnering with Woodsford to source funding for the IC Markets class action.This potential claim would be the latest of several class actions that targeted the sale of CFD products, following a 2021 crackdown by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on the marketing and distribution of CFDs to retail investors.As LFJ reported, this would not be the first time that Piper Alderman has brought a class against an online trading provider over the sale of CFD products, having filed a similar class action against IG Markets in May 2023. In the IG Markets case, Piper Alderman secured litigation funding from Omni Bridgeway. Since Piper Alderman’s case was filed, LFJ has also covered another class action brought by William Roberts Lawyers against IG Markets in August 2023, with funding also provided by Woodsford.
One of the key issues that commentators raised in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling, was whether the judgement would lead to a series of disputes between funders and their clients over the enforceability of litigation funding agreements (LFAs). A recent decision from the High Court has demonstrated that these disputes are already underway, with funders keen to preserve their returns whilst the legal arguments continue to be tested.An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of a High Court ruling in Therium Litigation Funding A IC v Bugsby Property LLC, where Mr Justice Jacobs granted Therium’s application for an asset preservation/freezing order against Bugsby. Therium’s application came about after Bugsby argued that, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision, its LFA with Therium was no longer enforceable and it should therefore not have to pay the funder.In his judgement, Mr Justice Jacobs stated that “where the amounts claimed by Therium and Omni collectively exceed the proceeds received, there is every reason for all of the trust funds to be preserved.” He explained that both parties had made arguments that “require mature consideration and full argument”, which would need to be further examined in subsequent arbitration proceedings.This ruling in favour of Therium followed another application for an asset preservation order by Omni Bridgeway, who had also funded Bugsby’s original lawsuit. That application was granted by Mr Justice Cotter on October 2nd. Therium’s spokesperson explained that the company had pursued the application as a solution to the “series of failed attempts by Bugsby to avoid paying what is owed to litigation funders.” They went on to highlight that the High Court’s decision was highly relevant to “funders, law firms and their clients and discouraging to claimants such as Bugsby that wish to use PACCAR as a means to walk away from their obligations to their funders.”
Although 2023 has been a turbulent year for litigation finance, with disappointing court rulings and an increase in calls for further regulation of the industry, it is clear that there is still a strong appetite among investors to commit resources to the sector. An article from Bloomberg, shared by Investment News, revealed that Fortress Investment Group LLC is working on raising its second fund dedicated to investments in litigation finance opportunities. Bloomberg’s source indicated that Fortress was looking to build upon its legal funding portfolio, having already invested $6 billion into the sector. Whilst Fortress did not provide a comment in response to Bloomberg’s reporting, the article suggests that the private equity company has already been strengthening its litigation finance team. According to the same source, Fortress had added another 12 employees to its legal assets team in the last 18 months, bringing that department’s total strength to 32.As LFJ covered last week, Andrew Jones, director at Fortress, was present at the recent IMN International Litigation Finance Forum and led a panel discussion on ‘Developments in Class Action and Group Litigation’.
On October 19th, IMN hosted its second Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, bringing together thought leaders from across the litigation finance industry and showcasing perspectives from funders, lawyers, insurers and more across a packed day of content.Following on from the successful inaugural edition in 2022, this year’s event once again demonstrated the growing strength of the litigation funding market, both in the UK and across the globe. The agenda also managed to capture the broad diversity of perspectives within the industry, with lively discussion and debate across the panels and breakout sessions.The day began with a panel focused on the current state of litigation funding in Europe, which immediately demonstrated the changes in the regional market over the last 12 months. Whereas last year’s panel on this topic was dominated by discussion around the Voss Report and the looming prospect of further regulation, yesterday’s conversation was firmly focused on the increasing innovation in the market and an evolving landscape that has seen competing models of third-party financing develop.Litica’s Ed Yell emphatically stated that “the growth in Europe over the last year has been spectacular”, and Iain McKenny from Profile Investment described the current state of play as a “hot bed for evolution.” A core element of the panel’s conversation revolved around the growing formation of a secondary market for litigation finance transactions, with JBSL’s co-founder Sarah Lieber summarising it aptly: “Secondary trading is the hallmark of a maturing asset class, it’s necessary to think about from the beginning of every funding deal.”The second panel of the morning ventured into the economics of the market, looking at the different types of funder capitalization and the challenges faced by funders looking to raise capital in the turbulent market. The panellists explored the differences between the UK and US market, with Ted Farrell from Litigation Funding Advisers, highlighting the lack of portfolio funding deals in the UK and pointing out that “single case is always going to be super expensive.” Neil Purslow explained that from Therium’s perspective, portfolio deals in the UK “usually don’t work well and fail”, resulting in a pivot back towards single case funding.The first of two panels focusing on the role of litigation insurance saw a wide-ranging discussion that covered everything from the type of cover available, to the increasingly varied ways that funders, law firms and insurers are collaborating on deals. On this topic, Robin Ganguly from Aon, stressed the need for funders and insurers “to work together to make the industry sustainable,” emphasising that “deals have to be attractive to everyone or deals won’t get done.” All the panelists agreed that those seeking insurers needed to be more proactive and prepared, with Tom Davey of Factor Risk Management putting it in clear terms: “Get insurance when it’s available, not three weeks before trial.”Unsurprisingly, the following panel discussion on class actions and group litigation immediately turned to the subject of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Echoing similar sentiments from speakers earlier in the day, most of the panelists agreed that funders and law firms were taking a pragmatic approach and exploring a variety of alternative structures for funding agreements and working closely with clients to find an optimal solution. Brown Rudnick’s Elena Ray provided the clearest overview of the situation, saying that firms “are not seeing a negative impact on the litigation funding space, so the parties have adjusted well to the PACCAR judgement.”Lara Melrose from Orchard Global described the UK’s group action market as “a very buoyant one” and noted that funders are benefitting from the courts’ flexible approach as demonstrated in recent decisions including the first amalgamation of claims in the CAT and the first application for a collective settlement. Alex Garnier of NorthWall Capital also pointed out that part of funders’ interest in class actions stems from the fact that “they’re not just fought in the courtroom they’re also fought in the court of public opinion”, thereby creating added pressure on large corporates to settle rather than “having their dirty laundry aired in court for months.”After a break for lunch and networking, the agenda once again returned to the topic of insurance, but with this panel putting an added emphasis on the lawyers’ perspective. Prompted by the panel’s moderator, Rocco Pirozzolo, the lawyers on the panel discussed some of the difficulties and frustrations they’ve faced when looking to secure insurance for a case. HFW’s Nicola Gare turned the question on its head, instead pointing out some best practices, with a particular emphasis on those funders who are able to give a prompt decision and explain their reasoning. Meanwhile, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Insurance, and James Gowen-Smith from Miller, both said that it was important for all parties to remember it was a collaborative relationship and that it always worked best where there was adequate transparency, and where insurers were involved in the strategy discussions as early as possible.The agenda turned from the present to the future in the next panel, with an insightful discussion around new models of delivering legal finance and how new technology, such as emerging AI tools, can be incorporated to fuel future growth. Nick Rolwes-Davis from Lexolent led the calls for more innovation and change in the funding process, arguing that the industry was “probably overdue a change” and that increased efficiency could be achieved by “using technology as a triage tool.” Ben Knowles of Clyde & Co. offered similar support for evolution within litigation funding, pointing out that from a law firm’s perspective, “if technology could improve that due diligence process, then hopefully more cases could be funded.”In the penultimate session of the day, Louise Trayhurn from Legis Finance, and Carlos Ara Triadu from Cuatrecasas, led the room in an engaging and entertaining interactive session. Trayhurn turned the tables on the audience, seeking out the varying perspectives of lawyers and funders on the evolving relationship between funders and law firms. Whilst some attendees were more hesitant than others, the live Q&A format provided an excellent change of pace and allowed for a free-flowing discussion about the unique challenges and opportunities around the lawyer-funder dynamic.For the final panel of the event, the focus shifted to developments in continental Europe and the ongoing implementation of the EU’s Directive on Representative Actions. The discussion, moderated by Joanna Curtis from Brown Rudnick, looked at the differing approaches to implementation across Europe, focusing on the panelist’s local jurisdictions of Germany, Ireland, and Spain. Whilst all the speakers agreed that the directive was a positive development overall, they also pointed out that in terms of enhancing access to litigation funding in Europe, it may not produce significant changes. Elaine Whiteford from Wilkie Farr & Gallagher highlighted that there are still “a number of critical issues that the initiative doesn’t address for funders” in Europe, with the use of funding still primarily limited by each country’s national laws on its permissibility.Overall, IMN’s second UK event managed to provide an insightful exploration of the litigation funding industry and provided attendees with a comprehensive view of the market, bolstered by insights from stellar thought leaders. Across a busy day of content, the forum offered a platform for a variety of perspectives, generating debates and discussions that will no doubt continue long after the event.LFJ looks forward to seeing how IMN continues to build on the success of the 2023 forum in the future.
Whilst much of the discussion at today’s IMN Forum has been focused on the current state of the litigation finance market, there was equal interest in the future of the industry and what ways the industry could create new improvements and efficiencies. Moderated by Jonathon Davidson, head of Middle East & Asia at Lexolent, the panel on ‘a new landscape in the delivery of legal finance’ explored how new technologies and new models for litigation funding could transform the market.The discussion began with the panelists exploring some of the systemic challenges that still exist in litigation funding, particularly around the difficulties for those seeking funding and the inefficiencies around the origination of funding opportunities.Ben Knowles, partner & chair of the global arbitration group at Clyde & Co., explained that the vast majority of funders are all concentrated on a small subsection of cases. This results in frustration for those seeking funding for smaller or less valuable cases, with Knowles explaining that “for anything that’s not right in that sweet spot it’s difficult to get those funding discussions going.” He also pointed out the experience of seeking funding is often “a grim process”, citing many times where lawyers can spend over a year working up a case and engaging with funders, only for nothing to come of it and then “it’s too late for the case to be picked up by someone else.”Following on from Knowles’ commentary on the frustrating nature of accessing funding, Nick Rowles-Davis, CEO of Lexolent, agreed with this assessment and expressed his frustration saying that “it is an incredibly torturous process, there doesn’t seem to a huge element of urgency on the part of funders to get things done.” He went out to explain that from a funder’s perspective there is a “need to streamline origination”, as funders will often spend huge amounts of time and resources to consider a hundred cases only to actually invest in three of them.Offering new strategies to improve these processes for all parties, Ludwig Bull, CEO of CourtCorrect, put forward the utility of large language models (LLMs) and AI tools to assess cases and streamline many of the due diligence processes, arguing that “we are seeing a paradigm shift when it comes to using this technology.” He went to illustrate CourtCorrect’s experience providing these tools to clients and how quickly people get used to the technology and can improve the efficiency of their own work, emphatically stating that “We’re not talking a 2x increase in productivity, we’re talking 3x productivity.”Providing insight into the unique challenges faced by insolvency practitioners seeking funding, Kristina Kicks, managing director at Interpath Advisory, once again stressed the need for efficiency in funding proposals as, from the perspective of an insolvency professional, “having decisions on funding more quickly means I can get better returns for creditors.” She also called for increased clarity and uniformity in the funding proposal process, as insolvency practitioners “need to demonstrate that we’re entering into a funding agreement with the best possible deal for creditors.”
As expected, the thriving class action landscape has been a prominent topic at IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum, with the final panel of the morning focusing on developments in class action and group litigation. The discussion was led by Andrew Jones, director at Fortress Investment Group, who guided the conversation across everything from recent changes in the class action process, to the ethical considerations for funders and lawyers, and managing origination risks.John Astill, managing director at Exton Advisors, kicked off the discussion with a detailed overview of the differing approaches taken by funders as they have been responding to the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision. He noted that whilst there has been some divergence in pricing, most increases in multiples have been very reasonable and that when reviewing new structures, “we have to be very careful on the impact that has on the stakeholders.” Astill went on to explain that whilst there are already several different approaches being taken in restructuring LFAs, such as introducing IRRs as a floor for duration risk, he suggested that “we will see more divergence as the market matures.” Furthermore, Astill stated that PACCAR hadn’t resulted in a downturn in demand for finding, instead they have been “seeing more appetite for law firm arrangements.” Elena Rey, partner at Brown Rudnick, offered an optimistic perspective on concerns that had been raised that the PACCAR ruling would lead to a series of client-funder disputes. Rey explained: “We are not seeing a lot of disputes, we are working one or two coming out of PACCAR, but mostly our clients (law firms or funders) were able to mutually agree on new arrangements. We are not seeing a negative impact onto the litigation funding space, so the parties have adjusted well to the PACCAR judgement.”Moving to a more general discussion of the opportunities and challenges involved in funding class actions, Alexander Garnier, founding partner at NorthWall Capital, highlighted that it remains “a high risk space compared to some of the assets we invest in.” He described it from the investor’s perspective by saying “it’s often sailing uncharted waters, so the returns need to reflect that”, but he also noted that “it’s not just about financials, this is about levelling the playing field for people who have been wronged.”Looking at the changing environment for the funding of class actions, Lara Melrose, co-head litigation finance at Orchard Global, said that “the fundraising environment is challenging, the cost of capital is going up, there are other asset classes which are more attractive to investors than these long duration, high risk claims.” However, she also countered this by asserting that it was not a wholly treacherous climate for class action funding and said, “on the positive side, the courts are demonstrating a flexible and pragmatic approach to facilitating these claims.”Bringing the perspective of law firms back into the discussion, Becca Hogan, partner at Signature Litigation, suggested that one of the most noticeable trends was a recent but noticeable cultural change within the UK that has seen people become more comfortable with participating in claims compared to previous years. Hogan added that this has been supported by the “courts’ willingness to take a more pragmatic approach to group claims, which has driven the increase in class actions.”
As the Co-Founder and CEO of DealBridge.ai, Jon Burlinson has over 25 years of experience in information management, software engineering, and technical management. He is passionate about delivering advanced SaaS solutions that leverage AI and data analytics to automate tasks, optimize decision-making, and provide valuable insights, ultimately enhancing efficiency and driving better deal outcomes. Company Name & Description: DealBridge.ai is the first Deal Relationship Management (DRM) platform, revolutionizing the way private market deals are handled. Harnessing the power of Generative AI and other advanced algorithms, DealBridge.ai automates the complexities and non-linearity of deal-making. The platform streamlines origination, due diligence, and distribution of private assets, eliminating traditional, labor-intensive processes. DealBridge.ai empowers sellers and buyers of alternative products to connect effortlessly at the deal level, enhancing the overall human experience and allowing users to focus on building and nurturing valuable relationships. With automation at its core, DealBridge.ai maximizes revenue potential and elevates deal-making capabilities in private markets. Company Website: https://DealBridge.aiYear Founded: 2021 Headquarters: New York Area of Focus: Building solutions for the litigation finance community. He aims to solve core issues that have plagued the space for years, facilitating more efficient and effective deal management for all stakeholders. Member Quote: "Litigation finance evens the odds, granting access to legal recourse for parties who might otherwise be outmatched. Advanced technologies such as AI and blockchain are becoming game-changers in the litigation finance sector. They are instrumental in transforming the way we handle legal transactions, making them more transparent, streamlined, and accessible to all stakeholders involved."
IMN’s agenda continued with a panel focused on the role of litigation insurance in the funding market, with the panelists attempting to answer the question: ‘how can litigants and funders use insurance to de-risk and monetize litigation and arbitration?’ Moderated by Simon Warr, lead underwriter for legal expenses at AmTrust International, the panel discussion explored the range of products being used in the industry, which types of insurance policies are seeing growth, and how funders, insurers and lawyers can continue to enhance their collaborations.Beginning with a discussion of the different types of litigation insurance that is available, the panelists focused on the prevalence of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in the UK market, whilst also putting a spotlight on the explosive growth of judgement preservation insurance (JPI) in the US. Robin Ganguly, executive director, UK & EMEA for Aon, highlighted the “huge explosion in the JPI market” and explained that as that market has matured, they are seeing a shift from “pure JPI” and towards “working with funders on a diversified portfolio basis.”The panelists also discussed the warning signs that insurers look for when receiving enquiries, with Tom Davey, co-founder of Factor Risk Management, providing the audience with some straightforward advice: “Do your homework, prepare well and take your broker’s advice.” Nathan Hull, director at VALE Insurance Partners, emphasised the importance of timing and citing situations where they receive “enquiries where the hearing has taken place and then they want to take out insurance before the judgement has come out.” The other panelists focused on the issue of due diligence during these enquiries, as Rocco Pirozzolo, underwriting director at Harbour Underwriting, highlighted that there are real issues where clients fail to give adequate responses to supplementary questions. He encouraged prospective insurance buyers to not “be shy about the fact that there might be issues with the case.” Boris Ziser, partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, also emphasised that there can be related risks for the insurer depending on the client, as he said that “depending on who you’re insuring, there can be a moral hazard.”Moving on to the future of the industry, Ziser highlighted that they are seeing “a lot of insurance for mass tort or collective actions cases.” Davey built upon this point and suggested that one possible reason for this increase in activity is due to the fact that “collective actions in the UK are effectively stepping into the shoes where regulators should be, the law is filling the gap.” In the US, Hull returned to the topic of JPI and stated that its popularity in the US was “because you can not only insure the judgement award but you can monetise it.” Ending with a note of caution for the industry, Pirozzolo expressed concern that there was still not enough education and communication between lawyers and their clients about the use of insurance to manage risk. He stated that he was “not convinced those conversations are happening at a high level,” and suggested that “this is where the value of a broker comes in, when solicitors don’t feel comfortable having to explore the risk appetite of their clients.”
The opening panel of IMN’s Litigation Finance Forum in London provided a lively discussion around the topic of ‘The Current State of the European Litigation Finance Market’. The panel, which was moderated by Rosie Ioannou, director – legal assets at Fortress Investment Group, covered everything from the ongoing drivers of change in the market, to the innovation and competition between competing models of third-party financing.Tackling the question of what is fueling the pace of change in the market, Sarah Lieber, co-founder of JBSL, explained that “the primary driver of change is the institutionalisation of the asset class”, with the growing diversity of types of investor and capital involved leading to changes in deal structuring. Iain McKenny, director and co-founder of Profile Investment, highlighted that funders are facing pressure from both “internal and external sources”, which has led to a “hot bed of evolution […] and as a consequence you get these competing models” for litigation funding.Turning to the role of insurance in the European market, Edward Yell, managing director at Litica, stated that “the growth in Europe over the last year has been spectacular”, but emphasised that “there isn’t a single European approach” due to the differing requirements across individual jurisdictions. Yell also pointed to the entrance of new participants to the market resulting in growing sophistication in deal types, explaining that as “it’s harder to deploy capital into Europe, funders have had to be more creative to make the deals worthwhile.”Speaking from the perspective of law firms who work on the defence side of litigation, Alice Darling, senior associate at Clifford Chance, explained that there are numerous barriers to entry for defendants including a lack of awareness and a lack of desire to engage with funders. In particular, Darling said that there is a “hesitancy about bringing a third party into the case if they don’t need to”, especially where a corporate doesn’t necessarily need the capita,l and where reputational risks are high. When it comes to that issue, Darling noted that the “Burford-Sysco case did not help the narrative” around litigation funding.Looking at potential future developments for the European market, Lieber stated that “secondary trading is the hallmark of a maturing asset class,” and that moving forward it will be “necessary to think about from the beginning of every funding deal.” Yell returned to the relationship between insurers and funders, asserting that whilst the two businesses are not direct competitors at the moment, “there are products coming onto the market where you could achieve the same effect with an insurer as you would with a funder.”Darling closed the panel with an overview of developments in regulation and case law, highlighting that we would not see the real impact of PACCAR for a while, whilst the Voss Report has “gone into the long grass of the European Commission.” McKenny also suggested that a lot of the calls for regulation of third-party funding in Europe “are actually really about concerns with the litigation system rather than about funding itself.”
Wendie Childress is an experienced commercial trial lawyer and litigation funder with an extensive and deep network across the U.S. legal and funding market. She joined Westfleet Advisors in 2023 after years of working with funding pioneers at Validity Finance and well over a decade of practicing commercial litigation at powerhouse boutique Yetter Coleman, one of the nation's premier boutique trial law firms.
In her private practice, Wendie had a winning track record representing both plaintiffs and defendants in commercial disputes across a variety of industries, including energy, financial services, healthcare, and IT. She graduated with Honors from the University of Texas at Austin, where she earned her JD in 2000. She then served for two years as General Counsel to the Texas Senate Committee on Business and Commerce. Wendie has been named to the Lawdragon "Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance" list and a "Houston Top Lawyer" in Business & Commercial Litigation by H Texas Magazine. She is a member of the State Bar of Texas, Texas Bar Foundation, Houston Bar Association, and Women of Litigation Finance Steering Committee. Company Name and Description: Westfleet Advisors is the most experienced litigation finance advisory firm in the world. Our core mission is to make litigation finance work better for lawyers and their clients by equipping them with the transparency, expertise, and resources they need to secure the best terms with the right capital partner. Company Website: https://www.westfleetadvisors.com/Year Founded: 2013 Headquarters: Nashville Area of Focus: As Managing Director and Counsel in the Westfleet Advisors Houston office, Wendie works directly with clients and their counsel in evaluating opportunities for litigation finance transactions and advising and shepherding them through all stages of the process to ensure that they get the best possible experience and terms. Member Quote: "As a former trial lawyer and member of the litigation funding community, I have seen firsthand the need for balanced access to justice for all litigants and how funding presents an innovative and valuable way to mitigate risk and bring good cases to trial. I am so impressed with the quality of counsel and professionals within the litigation funding industry who are a pleasure to work with and eager to partner with firms and help clients succeed. I also see sweeping changes across the industry as it matures and evolves with intra-market movement, new entrants appearing daily, and new and creative solutions being derived to meet the market's changing needs. As a member of the Westfleet team, my goal is to help clients and their counsel navigate this dynamic industry to have successful outcomes with their funding experience and ultimately, their cases."
Law Finance Group (LFG) has announced that Brendan Dyer has joined its team, taking on the position of Funding Director and based on the East Coast. Dyer arrives at LFG with a depth of experience in both litigation funding and the wider legal sector, having most recently held the position of Vice President, Business Development at Woodsford. Prior to that, Dyer had served as the Manager of Pricing and Project Management at Goodwin, and as Senior Pricing and Business Analyst at Wilmer Hale. Dyer also founded a legal finance brokerage, LongRock Advisors, providing deal origination for commercial litigation finance.In the announcement, Dyer stated that he was “excited to work with a diverse group of colleagues and to be part of a funder with LFG’s singular longevity.” Explaining his reasoning for joining the funder, Dyer went on to emphasise “LFG’s client focus and commitment to building long-term strategic partnerships.”LFG’s president & CEO, Kevin McCaffrey expressed that they were “thrilled to be adding Brendan to the LFG team”, highlighting that Dyer’s experience “in strategy and pricing for three AmLaw firms gives him a keen understanding of law firm economics and the attendant operational constraints.” McCaffrey added that Dyer’s “ability to put himself in the shoes of all parties in the funding agreement” would further enhance LFG’s services and its “ability to provide bespoke and creative financial solutions.”
There are few issues concerning litigation finance that have received more scrutiny and commentary than the ongoing debates around transparency in third-party funding, and conversely, the level of confidentiality that is afforded to lawyers and clients who engage with funders. To provide detailed guidance for industry participants, a leading litigation finance broker and adviser has published a new study that offers detailed insights into recent developments regarding confidentiality in litigation funding.Westfleet Advisors has published a new edition of its white paper, ‘Litigation Funding and Confidentiality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Current Case Law’, which aims to provide a thorough analysis of court decisions on the ‘confidentiality of information and documents about litigation funding.’ The report notes in its introduction that the number of decisions on this subject have risen dramatically over recent years, with Westfleet’s study analysing a total of 106 court decisions.The white paper explains that there has been a common misconception that ‘lawyers were unable to predict whether a court would compel discovery of information shared with a commercial litigation funder because few decisions existed on the issue.’ It goes on to explain that despite the lack of concrete appellate court rulings on the subject, ‘enough case law exists to see the shape and trend of the law on these questions.’Through its analysis of these 106 trial court decisions, Westfleet found that in most cases (68%), the court denied or limited discovery of any communications with litigation funders or the actual litigation funding agreements. The report also looks at the volume of decisions on this subject over time, and found that ‘since 2011, each year has seen more courts denying discovery requests related to litigation funding than granting them.’ This has been consistently true, despite the fact that the number of rulings concerning confidentiality of litigation funding has risen over the last decade.The full report, which delves into the specifics of these decisions, the reasoning that the courts applied, and the conclusions that can be drawn from these trends, can be read here.
As legal departments in companies across every sector face increasing pressures on their budgets and litigation strategies, funders are keen to demonstrate the different ways in which they can provide support, both through direct provisions of capital and by lending their expertise in litigation matters.In an insights post from Omni Bridgeway, Carrie Freed and Matt Leland offer an overview of the challenges facing legal departments using preferred legal panel (PLP) programs, and how in-house counsel can use litigation funding to enhance these PLPs. The use of third-party funding by in-house attorneys allows these teams to ease budget pressures, whilst still maintaining sustainable relationships with high quality outside counsel. Looking at the benefits available to legal departments, Freed and Leland begin by stating the most immediately apparent benefit that by using litigation funding, ‘the company reduces its financial risks by capping or possibly eliminating its legal fees for the life of the litigation.’ Furthermore, the rigorous analysis that funders undertake before financing a case is a useful tool for ensuring the strength of the claim, which can provide ‘reassurance to in-house counsel, business partners, and directors who might be wary about filing a claim.’ In addition to verifying the merits of a claim, funders can also bring a wealth of experience both from their teams and the vast number of past engagements with similar cases, providing in-house counsel with ‘fresh perspectives about strategy or to pressure-test arguments.’Freed and Leland therefore recommend that companies incorporate litigation funding into their PLPs, firstly by educating their law firms about funding opportunities and then by including ‘litigation funding provisions in PLP documents’. They suggest that this could include a variety of provisions, such as setting the expectation that a law firm would ‘solicit at least one proposal for litigation funding when pitching for a plaintiff-side case.’
Doorway Capital, a specialist in legal funding solutions,has launched a new funding product designed to support law firms looking for M&A opportunities to achieve their growth ambitions.
The Shelf Facility provides a firm with pre-agreed access to funding - the facility is fully underwritten and documented in advance of being required, with funds being made available as they are needed. This structure allows firms to actively pursue acquisition opportunities in the knowledge that they can act swiftly and decisively when they find the right target.
The product is an extension of the flexible solutions Doorway Capital has been offering law firms since 2015, including funding for the merger of Moore Blatch and Barlow Robins, and various acquisitions made by AWH Solicitors, Simpson Millar and other firms.
“Doorway Capital’s new shelf facility is a gamechanger” saysAbdul Hussain, Chief Executive of AWH Solicitors. “It means that we can secure access to additional funds when we find a suitable investment opportunity in the M&A market without having to wait on credit approval.”
The launch comes in response to increased demand from across the sector, with leading M&A broker, Acquira Professional Services, reporting more than 60 M&A deals in 2023 to date, with a spike expected shortly to coincide with the PII renewal season.
“Over the last 18 months, law firms have increasingly asked Doorway for a funding commitment that can be established in advance of needing to draw upon it” says Steve Din, founder of Doorway Capital. “The catalyst for this is, undoubtedly, the desire for law firms to make acquisitions and ensuring acquisition funding is available to be drawn, often, at very short notice.”
Doorway Capital has been providing specialist funding solutions for UK law firms since 2015. Facilities are typically written up to values of £20m and tailored to clients’ individual needs.
“The team at Doorway Capital are extremely knowledgeable – they spent time and effort designing a facility that gave us the depth and flexibility we needed at a crucial time in our growth. I couldn’t recommend a better funding partner for a law firm.” – Shane Hensman, CEO of Cordus Law.
As Doorway’s founder, Steve Din, was a former managing director of the global investment bank Morgan Stanley and European Head of Restructurings at Citigroup, it is no surprise that Doorway has chosen to pay close attention to the needs of law firms looking to grow by acquisition.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.
