Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3174 Articles

Australian Small Businesses Leverage Funding to Pursue Class Action

Litigation funding allows consumers to seek legal redress against companies when their consumer rights are infringed, and is also a valuable asset for small business owners who lack the financial resources to stand up to those they enter into commercial agreements with. In the latest example of such a case, Australian businesses have launched a claim against EFTPOS systems provider, Tyro, arguing that weeks of system outages led to significant lost revenue for their companies. Reporting by news.com.au outlines how a nationwide failure of Tyro’s systems, which lasted for several weeks, resulted in around 11,000 companies being unable to process payments and thereby losing valuable business. The class action, which is being funded by Syndey-based Court House Capital, was launched last October and seeks damages from Tyro for the outlets’ lost revenue, which the claim argues ranges from $5,000 to a staggering $100,000. Bannister Law, which is leading the class action, has been working to register as many claimants as possible, as any businesses who do not register to participate in the action will not be entitled to any compensation if the claim is successful.  Charles Bannister stated that this case is particularly important, as it is intertwined with COVID business practices, given that many customers were unable or unwilling to pay in cash when the payments systems stopped functioning, resulting in an even more dire outcome for these businesses.

The Benefits of Data-Driven Litigation

Just as other industries have been enhanced by the evolution of technology and particularly data-driven processes, litigators also have the potential to benefit from drawing on a wealth of data to maximize successful outcomes in their work. In a new piece of analysis by LCM, investment manager Hugo Marshall, argues that utilizing data does not remove the importance of the individual expertise litigators bring, but rather enhances it. By using large data-sets to look at broader patterns within cases and outcomes, litigators can view each of their own individual cases through a wider lens, and gain a high degree of certainty when it comes to predicting the outcomes of future proceedings. While Mr Marshall does not disregard the clear limitations of data when viewed by itself, he highlights that it can be used by funders to more accurately assess financial risk, by law firms to define the most successful strategy, and by companies looking to decide if they want to pursue litigation and what their most secure options are. Mr Marshall also points out that while firms should leverage their own proprietary data, they should be open to taking advantage of third-party data that can inform their own risk analysis and probability forecasting. LCM works with litigation analytics platform, Solomonic, to do just that.

Ongoing Debates around Litigation Funding Regulation in Europe

As the pace of adoption of litigation funding continues to grow across Europe, so too does the debate around the level and scope of regulation needed to ensure that this burgeoning sector is able to flourish without unethical practices becoming commonplace. Industry leaders alongside government and regulatory officials continue to work together to find a best path forward for an adequate framework across the continent. Andrina Cordina, PhD researcher at Erasmus School of Law, provided an informative update on the latest discussions and developments in an article for Conflicts of Laws. Cordina outlined the latest insights from thought-leaders at The Future Regulation of Third-Party Litigation Funding in Europe conference, where speakers discussed pressing issues for upcoming regulation including disclosure requirements, litigation costs and the purported risks of excessive litigation resulting from an increased use of third-party funding. Cordina also highlighted the recent launch of a third-party litigation funding project by the European Law Institute, which over the course of the next two years seeks to establish a core set of principles to be used when assessing the merits of engaging in a third-party funding agreement. Finally, Cordina also spotlights a recent special edition of the Erasmus Law Review dedicated to legal funding, with insights including the differing nuances of litigation funding in individual European jurisdictions versus the role of the European Union’s legal framework.

Omni Bridgeway Banks a Profit 

Sydney-based litigation financier, Omni Bridgeway, announced a $4.5MM profit for the 12 months ending in June. The news is a turnaround from the -$12.7MM loss a year prior. Andrew Saker (CEO at Omni Bridgeway) says Omni maintains resources of over $1B for potential litigation investments.  According to Law.com, Mr. Saker says that Omni is taking advantage of global market opportunities in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and the United States. Saker highlights Omni earning AUD $463.3MM in new commitments over the last 12 months.  Law.com reports that litigation finance is experiencing increased growth via broader acceptance of resources to access the justice system. Mr. Saker notes Omni Bridgeway's business plan is not affected by the cyclical economic climate with cases maturing throughout good and bad cycles.  Saker goes on to say that the firm performs handsomely in downturns, given the increased need for access to capital. 

LITFINCON ll: The Premier Litigation Finance Conference Returns to Houston

LITFINCON is excited to announce its return to The Post Oak Hotel in Houston in March 2023, after a triumphant conference in March 2022.

Last year’s LITFINCON attracted global thought-leaders from a variety of disciplines in the legal and investment sectors. In particular, attendees learned about the major trends and notable developments in litigation finance – an emerging investment asset class for institutional investors and an increasing source of capital for legal professionals and law firms.

Building on LITFINCON, LITFINCON II expects to have a diverse set of over 300 attendees that include leading business executives, judges, litigation funders, elite Am Law firms, corporate counsel, legal professors, and institutional investors. We are looking forward to hosting this event in our backyard, Houston, Texas, one of the largest legal markets in the country. Attendees will have the opportunity to listen to a diverse mix of insightful panel discussions, regulatory changes, judicial thoughts & opinions, and investment trends in litigation finance.

There will be even more opportunities to connect with speakers, panelists, and other attendees to expand referral networks and become well-informed about this growing institutional asset class. New to the agenda, LITFINCON II will host an exclusive event for VIP attendees to experience the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, the largest livestock exhibition and rodeo in the world. The conference will also continue the fun tradition of "Law, Lunch & Laughs" with a celebrity comedian as a keynote speaker.

LITFINCON II is thrilled to have early support from some of the most high-profile organizations in the litigation finance industry. Confirmed initial sponsors for LITFINCON II include Certum Group, CAC Specialty, Schulte Roth & Zabel, Omni Bridgeway, Filevine, Aon, Dunning Rievman, and Arran Capital.

“We’re proud that the inaugural LITFINCON was a tremendous success and want to thank the many sponsors, panelists, and attendees, who attended from all over the world – London, Geneva, New York, Miami, San Francisco, and Austin. LITFINCON highlighted the growing field of litigation finance and the importance of Texas as a hub that unites all participants in the legal field. Siltstone Capital is excited about continuing the momentum and advancing the litigation finance field by hosting LITFINCON II in March 2023,” says Mani Walia, Managing Partner & General Counsel, Siltstone Capital.

Entrusted by leading institutions, Siltstone Capital is a premier multi-strategy investment firm that provides capital solutions to litigants, law firms, and legal departments to help resolve their real-world legal issues and create significant value for all stakeholders.

For more information, visit our website http://www.litfincon.com. Please view our March 2022 Highlight Video. For media and partnership inquiries, please contact Allyson Herebic at allyson.herebic@siltstone.com

LegalPay Elevates Kashish Grover as Chief Operating Officer

LegalPay, a FinTech in legal and insolvency space, announced that it has elevated Kashish Grover as Chief Operating Officer (COO). Kashish will be leading LegalPay’s domestic and global operations and accelerating the company’s long-term growth strategy. He will also be responsible for building new initiatives within legal payments infra, both domestic and international. The company is the largest scaled player in the legal and insolvency financing market and is backed by marquee investors such as 9unicorns, Amity Incubation Fund, Venture Catalysts, LetsVenture and other family offices. The company is expanding in four cities in a span of next one month, namely Mumbai, Bengaluru, Surat and Pune. Founder and CEO, Kundan Shahi said, “Kashish joined us as the first person and has been instrumental in building LegalPay into what it is today. He has been successfully leading our both verticals – litigation financing and interim financing and has closed landmark transactions in both during the last two years. As we double down on growth while consistently increasing revenues, Kashish’s experience as a resilient leader and organisation builder will play a pivotal role. We wish him luck for his new role and challenges.” Kashish joined LegalPay as Chief Investment Officer in January 2021 and has previously worked with organisations such as Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Goldman Sachs in the deal advisory and investment management division. He also co-founded a food and beverage start-up in cloud kitchens that was entirely bootstrapped and exited after scaling it in Delhi NCR.

UK Oil Firm Wins £210MM in Compensation from Italian Government

While litigation funding is often used by companies to facilitate legal claims against one another, it also provides a tool for corporates to seek redress against state actors whose legislation has unjustly penalised their business or operations. This week saw another example of such a case, as Rockhopper, a UK-based oil and gas exploration firm, was awarded £210 million in compensation from the Italian government. Detailed in reporting by The Guardian, Rockhopper had first sued the state in 2017 for a ban on offshore oil drilling that it claimed had violated the government’s obligation to the company, which had already begun planning on the Ombrina Mare drilling site. The case was wholly financed by Harbour Litigation Funding, with Rockhopper’s CEO, Sam Moody, declaring back in 2017 that the “process cost us nothing.” The award was made by a panel of judges acting within the bounds of the European Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), ruling that Rockhopper was entitled to damages beyond its initial £33 million investment in the project, in order to co

Disclosure in the Spotlight for Patent Cases with Third-Party Funding

The topic of disclosure in litigation where there is the presence of third-party funding has been a hot topic in several jurisdictions, with defendants strongly arguing that there needs to be an increased level of transparency when it comes to litigation funding. In a recent development, outlined in The National Law Review, a judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that parties in patent litigation cases must comply with enhanced Rule 7.1 disclosures, specifically those required around funding arrangements. Chief Judge Connolly, in the case of Longbeam Technologies v. Amazon.com, stated concerns around the plaintiff’s lack of disclosure for its third-party funding and stayed the case to allow for the defendant to pursue discovery on Longbeam’s litigation funding. This latest example of a court mandating further disclosure around third-party funding agreements is unlikely to be the last, and as the use of litigation funding increases around the globe, both funders and litigants should keep a close eye on whether courts are mandating a heightened degree of transparency.

LegalTech Fund Invests in Settlement Analysis Platform

One of the central tenets of litigation funding is the importance of risk management and analysis not only during case selection, but further down the road when counsel must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of settlement. Whilst law firms bring their significant weight of experience and expertise to bear when evaluating settlement options during dispute resolution, the ability to pinpoint the exact right moment and terms under which to settle is always a challenge. In an announcement by The Legal Tech Fund, one potential solution to this challenge is being explored, as the fund has invested in SettleIndex, a fintech company aiming to reduce risk through detailed financial modeling. The SettleIndex platform is designed to provide lawyers with the tools to evaluate the risk of any case, allowing them to visualize potential outcomes and map that against the financial risk of each option. The value of such technology is not only present for lawyers and their clients, but also for funders eager for more ways to assess case viability and mitigate risk when financing a particular case. Being able to model not only probabilities of success, but also the individual pathways to reliable financial return could be a unique tool in a funder’s arsenal.

Burford Shares Outlook on Funding Growth in Australia

While commercial litigation funding has been present in Australia since the 1990s, there are signs of continued industry growth within the country.  In a recent podcast, Burford Capital’s Matt Lee discussed the factors which are building momentum for further growth within the litigation finance industry. Mr Lee points out that while third-party funding has historically been used in class actions against companies, it has become apparent to these same large corporations that this funding is a useful tool to alleviate costs and manage litigation risk. In particular, Mr Lee sees increased adoption in the mining and energy, construction, M&A and commodities sectors.  Outside of domestic commercial litigation, the other main catalyst has been the changes to arbitration regulation in 2021, which was the first time third-party funding had been mentioned. These new rules released by the ACICA include the ability to recover the costs of funding during arbitration, further minimising risks and offering the potential benefits of recouping costs. Secondly, Mr Lee highlights the new clarity around disclosure rules as being a previously murky area that now offers clarity to funders, lawyers and clients alike. Mr Lee argues that international arbitration or investment treaty arbitration will be some of the most active areas for litigation finance in the coming years. This is due to the fact that funding helps offset the disadvantages of Australia being an adverse cost jurisdiction, the lengthy duration of international disputes and the challenge of enforcement and collection outside of national borders.

Bloomberg on California’s Approach to Law Firm Ownership 

In the wake of the American Bar Association approving measures to loosen restrictions on sharing Law firm revenues with non-attorneys, Bloomberg law reports that legislators in California are resisting the notion. Many legal scholars around the country say that sharing law firm ownership with non-lawyers is inconsistent with core values of the legal profession.  According to Bloomberg Law, amending California's law firm ownership provisions could have a significant impact on the integrity of legal competition and innovation in the state. That said, William Farrell Jr. (Co-Founder and Managing Director at Longford Capital) highlights a long-term approach to the eventual economic evolution of law firm ownership structures around the United States.  Bloomberg reports of various 'sandbox' approaches to ownership models that could impact the sharing of profits from law firm proceeds. Arizona was the first state to repeal rules to allow non-attorney law firm ownership. Bloomberg notes that the concept of non-lawyer participants in firm ownership will continue to produce 'epic' debate.

The Dawn of Summer Associates at Omni Bridgeway 

Offices in Houston, New York and San Francisco at Omni Bridgeway will host an exciting new 10 week summer associate program. Jordan Metoyer (Graduate of Georgetown Law Center) and Chanel Ricks (Rising 2L at Howard University School of Law) were selected to participate in the inaugural rotation of Omni's prestigious program.  Matt Harrison (Co-Chief Investment Officer and United States Managing Director at Omni Bridgeway) says that Omni is very excited to host the new Summer Associate program. Ms. Metoyer and Ms. Ricks both share enthusiastic praise for their experience in the summer internship program. Ms. Metoyer mentions learning from Omni's fact-driven approach to building customer relationships and unique litigation funding agreements. Ms. Ricks shares learnings about the significance litigation funding can play for claimants who are seeking justice.  Both Metoyer and Ricks say the summer rotation has had a meaningful impact on their journey as young attorneys. Amy Geise (Head of Houston Office and Summer Associate Program at Omni Bridgeway) says that Omni will continue to offer forward-thinking attitudes to help develop the next generation of litigation financiers.

Regency Funding Collects $29MM in Takata Airbag Class Action

The ability of consumers to hold major international corporations to account over their failings has been drastically strengthened by the presence of third-party funding options around the world. This was demonstrated in the case of the Takata Airbag class action, which saw the court award a $52 million settlement across six cases brought by Australian consumers against automobile manufacturers. Analysis by Wolters Kluwer Australia in Lexology highlights the extent of these actions, which found BMW, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota liable for failing to comply with safety standards and quality requirements for the airbags in their vehicles. The settlement will see the primary six plaintiffs each receive $20,000 in compensation, as well as $600 in damages for any consumer affected by this breach in standards. Regency Funding, which backed the case, will receive $13 million in funder’s commission, as well as $15.57 million to recover the plaintiff’s legal costs.

An Argument for Reforming the Principle of Non-Recoverability

While the availability of, and access to, litigation funding has been a boon for those seeking access to justice, some industry insiders argue that reforms have not gone far enough, and that more change is needed. One area of interest is recoverability for plaintiff costs, where currently claimants still stand to lose financially in order to cover the costs of the very funding that has allowed them to access justice. Writing for The Law Society Gazette, managing director of LionFish, Tets Ishikawa, argues that where defendants have been proven to have harmed plaintiffs, it is right and just that they recoup the costs for an action caused by the defendant’s wrongdoing. He argues this is doubly true in cases where the defendant prolongs proceedings through inaction or failure to properly handle proceedings, thereby causing claimant’s costs to rise; as is true in the case of Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment. Ishikawa also acknowledges that reform should not mean recoverability would be available in all commercial litigation matters, but that it should still be at the liberty of the court to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis. He points out that the basis behind non-recoverability is now outdated, and fundamentally misaligned with the principles of widening the avenues to legal redress that litigation funding is supposed to provide.

Australian Funder Seeks Outside Investment to Finance New Cases

Litigation finance is booming around the world, and while new funders are increasingly popping up to meet regional demand, industry stalwarts are continuing to augment their resources. Reporting for the Australian Financial Review demonstrates this trend with a spotlight on Litigation Lending Services (LLS), which is looking to stock its war chest for future cases with a new funding round, in partnership with Credit Suisse. The Sydney-based funder is looking to raise up to $35 million in new capital from investors, aiming to put this money to work funding new litigation opportunities, while its previous ventures are still moving towards completion. While the firm has previously relied upon its internal capital to fund new ventures, this is the second time it has looked for external investment after the launch of its Litigation Lending Fund 1, back in 2019, which raised $50 million to take on cases. LLS, which was founded in 1999, claims a success rate of 93 per cent on cases that reach completion, and has backed many high-profile cases in Australia, including the class action against NT and WA for stolen wages.

Evaluating the Rise of Class Actions in the UK and Europe

While class actions have historically been much more prominent within the US legal system, which has been more open to aggressive litigious actions, the UK and Europe seem to be heading in a similar direction. In particular, large consumer group claims are now more frequently being brought against major multinationals, particularly in the area of competition law. In a piece of analysis for Lawyer Monthly, David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe, argues that there are three primary drivers of this increase outside the US. He notes that updates in court rules allowing opt-out mass claims, a rise in the number of specialist claimant firms and the increased presence of third-party capital from funders, provide ample fuel to power this explosive growth. As to whether this growth in class actions globally is a positive or negative for the industry, Greene highlights that it is not just that consumers are going after big business, but also companies are using these structures and tools to engage in aggressive litigation against other corporates. He also notes that it would be unwise to make a one-to-one comparison with the US system, due to the more limited liabilities and the more narrow scale of damages and costs that can be incurred.

LITFINCON ll: The Premier Litigation Finance Conference Returns to Houston

After a triumphant conference in March 2022, LITFINCON is excited to announce its return to The Post Oak Hotel in Houston, in March of 2023.  According to the company’s press release, this past year’s LITFINCON attracted global thought-leaders from a variety of disciplines in the legal and investment sectors. In particular, attendees learned about major trends and notable developments in litigation finance – an emerging asset class for institutional investors and a source of capital for legal professionals and law firms. Building on LITFINCON, LITFINCON II expects to have a diverse set of over 300 attendees that include leading business executives, judges, litigation funders, elite Am Law firms, corporate counsel, legal professors, and institutional investors. We are looking forward to hosting this event in our backyard, Houston, Texas, one of the largest legal markets in the country. Attendees will have the opportunity to listen to a diverse mix of insightful panel discussions, regulatory changes, judicial thoughts & opinions, and investment trends in litigation finance. There will be even more opportunities to connect with speakers, panelists, and other attendees to expand referral networks and become well-informed about this growing institutional asset class. New to the agenda, LITFINCON II will host an exclusive event for VIP attendees to experience the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, the largest livestock exhibition and rodeo in the world. The conference will also continue the fun tradition of "Law, Lunch & Laughs" with a celebrity comedian as a keynote speaker. LITFINCON II is thrilled to have early support from some of the most high-profile organizations in the litigation finance industry. Confirmed initial sponsors for LITFINCON II include Certum Group, CAC Specialty, Schulte Roth & Zabel, Omni Bridgeway, Filevine, Aon, Dunning Rievman, and Arran Capital. “We’re proud that the inaugural LITFINCON was a tremendous success and want to thank the many sponsors, panelists, and attendees, who attended from all over the world – London, Geneva, New York, Miami, San Francisco, and Austin. LITFINCON highlighted the growing field of litigation finance and the importance of Texas as a hub that unites all participants in the legal field. Siltstone Capital is excited about continuing the momentum and advancing the litigation finance field by hosting LITFINCON II in March 2023,” says Mani Walia, Managing Partner & General Counsel, Siltstone Capital. Entrusted by leading institutions, Siltstone Capital is a premier multi-strategy investment firm that provides capital solutions to litigants, law firms, and legal departments to help resolve their real-world legal issues and create significant value for all stakeholders.

Third-Party Funding in the UAE Requires a Tailored Approach

As the practice of litigation funding continues to expand globally, it is important for companies to be aware of the nuances of the regulatory structures governing funding arrangements in each jurisdiction. Within the United Arab Emirates (UAE), third-party funding is widely accepted, but as with other jurisdictions, there are local considerations which vary based on the specific type of funding that a client wishes to pursue. In a piece of analysis for Lexology, Nick Braganza and Nicola Gare of HFW, outline the best practices and key points to consider when seeking funding for disputes in the UAE. As the country has separate court systems, HFW highlights the most important issues to bear in mind. For example, where claims are brought in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) or Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) economic free zones, funders will mandate that clients acquire ATE insurance to offset risk in the event of adverse cost orders. However, this is not the case in the onshore courts, as those orders are rarely made, and where they do occur, do not represent a significant penalty. When it comes to the types of funding agreements, HFW notes that Damages Based Agreements are unlawful within the UAE, with the sole exception of the ADGM freezone. However, Conditional Fee Agreements are broadly accepted across the courts, but it is important to note that in the onshore courts, the legal costs that can be recovered are nominal. Furthermore, agreements must be structured based on the legal fees being incurred, and not based on a proportion of the financial reward should the case be successful.

Litigators Must Adapt to New Ways of Working post-Covid

The impact of the Covid pandemic has been wide-ranging across the legal industry, and in a fundamental sense, has reshaped the ways in which everyday proceedings are carried out. This is especially true for litigation where matters that would have required hours of in-person attendance, in addition to travel, can now be carried out more efficiently through virtual proceedings. In a conversation with Burford Capital, John Quinn, managing partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, highlighted the ability to conduct depositions remotely as an area that has not only been executed effectively, but also has advantages over in-person depositions. However, Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford, raised the issue that depositions may be less useful for the questioner when he or she is not able to be in the same room as the deposed individual. On a similar note, Quinn discussed how law and motion days in courts previously represented time-consuming and expensive exercises for attorneys, but now these have been replaced with more streamlined remote sessions. All of these factors will therefore shape the ways in which litigators and funders continue to work together in a post-Covid world.

Multibillion Pound Claim Filed Against Sony Group

A claim against Sony Group was filed on 19 August 2022 in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The claim is being brought on behalf of UK-based PlayStation users who have purchased digital games and/or add-on content from the PlayStation Store since 19 August 2016. The claim is being funded by Woodsford, the UK’s leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business. It’s alleged that Sony is breaching UK and EU competition law by abusing its dominant position resulting in consumers paying inflated prices for digital PlayStation games and add-on content. This standalone collective action is brought on behalf of an estimated 9 million potential class members. An application has been made to the CAT for a Collective Proceedings Order which if ordered will result in a single class representative representing all potential class members on an opt-out basis. The proposed class representative is consumer champion Alex Neill, Chief Executive of Resolver.co.uk. Alex’s team, funded by Woodsford, includes the law firm Milberg London LLP, economics experts at Berkeley Research Group LLC and barristers from Monckton Chambers. Woodsford’s Chief Executive Officer, Steven Friel, commented: “Woodsford’s ESG team is dedicated to holding big business to account when corporate wrongdoing causes loss to consumers and other stakeholders. We are proud to support Alex Neill's case, helping deliver access to justice for millions of gamers. Our significant financial and professional resource is already backing UK class actions against train companies accused of overcharging, and shippers whose cartel behaviour is alleged to have inflated the price of cars. With the launch of this claim against Sony, and with more landmark cases being worked up, Woodsford is now clearly established as the most successful ESG and litigation finance business in this area of UK collective redress." Further information on the claim and updates on its progress can be found at www.playstationyouoweus.com. About Woodsford Founded in 2010 and with a presence in London, New York, Brisbane, Philadelphia and Minneapolis, Woodsford is a leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business. Whether it is helping consumers achieve collective redress, ensuring that investors and universities are properly compensated when Big Tech infringes intellectual property rights, or helping shareholders in collaborative, escalated engagement up to and including litigation with listed companies, Woodsford is committed to ensuring the highest ESG standards while providing access to justice. Working globally with many of the world’s leading law firms, our legal experience, investment, business and technical expertise, in tandem with our significant financial muscle, makes us a powerful partner and a formidable adversary. Woodsford is a founder member of both the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) and the Association of Litigation Funders of England & Wales (ALF), and a member of the International Corporate Governance Network. Woodsford continues to grow, and we welcome approaches from experienced litigation lawyers and other professionals who are interested in joining our team. For more information visit www.woodsford.com

A Snapshot of ESG in Litigation Funding

As the litigation funding market continues to grow and evolve, funders are placing a higher value on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. This development raises questions about the connection between ESG and litigation funding, how litigation funders are currently addressing ESG, and what the future of ESG in litigation funding will look like. The following article will offer answers to those questions and act as a general overview of the state of ESG in litigation funding.

What is ESG and Why Does it Matter?

ESG encompasses environmental issues like air or water pollution, social issues such as customer privacy and data security, and governance issues like transparency. ESG pursuits have come to the forefront of many corporate agendas over the last decade. In some cases, this focus may be self-imposed, but it’s often a legal requirement as well. Even as companies champion ESG to satisfy customers and shareholders, they don’t always stay in compliance with those values and/or laws. As the number of ESG-related laws and regulations increases, compliance will become a greater focus for companies and investors alike. Litigation exists as both a deterrent to, and a regulator of, ESG non-compliance. ESG cases in response to corporate non-compliance create the connection between ESG and litigation funding. As Tets Ishikawa, Managing Director at LionFish Litigation Finance stated, litigation funding of ESG cases has a key role to play in helping businesses meet their ESG goals. Corporate executives aren’t the only ones concerned about ESG issues, however; savvy investors also recognize the importance of ESG. Responsible investing in ESG causes is often an obligation for pension fund managers and other asset allocators. Even when that is not the case, investors increasingly see ESG as a priority, with 85 percent of investors interested in sustainable investing.

Litigation Funders Pursuing ESG Cases

Major players in the litigation funding arena are already talking about or pursuing ESG investments. Funders like Therium, Woodsfood, North Wall Capital, and Litigation Lending Services have prioritized ESG cases, and more funders will likely join them in the coming years. One leading litigation funder, Therium, emphasizes the importance of ESG as part of broader responsible investing efforts. Funding ESG legal action, the funder states, makes justice more accessible for those harmed in ESG breaches. Litigation funding helps those claims be brought, even when the claimants don’t have the resources to fund extensive legal battles. Woodsford is another litigation funder touting the value of ESG litigation. Bob Koneck, Director of LitFin and legal counsel at Woodsford, emphasized the potential of ESG litigation as a reputation-enhancing tool for companies. He claims that companies can position themselves as ESG leaders through litigation, while also recovering money to use toward additional ESG initiatives. This is a unique view on the value of ESG litigation that speaks to the potential these cases have for corporations. This past week’s news cycle illustrates how cemented the concept of ESG litigation has become within the litigation funding ecosystem, as both new entrants and entrenched players are making waves on the topic. North Wall Capital recently announced a $100 million investment into law firm Pogust Goodhead, with the aim of funding ESG cases specifically. Fabian Chrobog, Chief Investment Officer of North Wall, argues that ESG investment makes practical sense, as these cases maintain a higher probability of settlement than most other claim types. And Paul Rand, Chief Investment Officer of Omni Bridgeway, recently revealed that the longtime funder is planning the launch of an ESG Finance fund. According to Rand, Omni is currently testing bespoke techniques for valuing and assessing ESG risk management.

ESG Cases Funded by Litigation Funders

Airbus Case Funded by Woodsford One prominent ESG case organized and funded by a litigation funder, is the Airbus case financed by Woodsford. Investigations by international authorities including the US Department of Justice revealed that Airbus SE, a manufacturer of military and civilian aerospace products headquartered in Europe, had participated in a widescale bribery and corruption scheme. In 2020, the company was forced to pay billions of dollars of fines to resolve these bribery charges, causing a major dip in its share price. Airbus investors incurred serious losses due to these violations of ESG principles and Airbus’ failure to inform the public in a timely manner about its conduct. That’s where litigation funder Woodsford got involved. Woodsford organized the affected investors into a special purpose entity, Airbus Investors Recovery Limited (AIRL), which is currently pursuing legal action against Airbus in Amsterdam to recover losses. The ESG team at Woodsford is funding and organizing this action. Without such involvement, the claimants may not have been able to pursue action against a large company with such deep pockets. Being able to hold major corporations like Airbus accountable for their egregious ESG breaches is one of the most significant benefits of litigation funding. Litigation Lending Services' "Stolen Wages" Claim Litigation Lending Services, an Australian litigation funder, funded another notable ESG case related to stolen wages. This class action began in September of 2016, and was a lawsuit on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers in Australia. The workers had been subject to ‘protection’ legislation from the late 1800s up to the 1970s. This wage control legislation led to tens of thousands of indigenous workers across a variety of industries never receiving their full wages, estimated to be millions of Australian dollars in total. Wage violations like these fall under the governance portion of ESG. Litigation Lending Services offered its support to the case, which reached a settlement of $190 million in December, 2019. To date, the case is the largest human rights case in Australian history. The settlement brought resolution to more than ten thousand First Nations people. Both of these cases illustrate the potential of ESG, and the possibilities for more ESG cases and litigation funder involvement in the future. In Conclusion Global legal actions related to ESG issues like climate change are increasing, and the targets of these lawsuits are shifting to include more corporations over time, rather than just governments. It’s worth noting that environmental issues often get the most attention, but ESG litigation goes beyond just environmental claims. Lawsuits involving fraud, disclosure rule breaches, diversity and equity, misrepresentation, and health and safety issues all fall under the category of ESG litigation. Environmental claims have seen the largest growth in the last few years, but we can expect other types of ESG lawsuits to increase as well. Another factor driving additional ESG litigation is the lack of clarity surrounding what exactly constitutes ESG. The intense focus on ESG is fairly new, meaning parties are not in complete agreement on the definition of ESG and how it should be measured and reported. As the number of ESG group claims increases, there’s room for growth in the litigation funding market. This industry is constantly evolving to keep up with broader trends in litigation, including the evolution of ESG claims. For now, it’s clear ESG will have a key role to play in the future of litigation funding.

Deminor Sees Growing Adoption of Third-Party Funding in Latin America

While the US, Europe and Australia dominate the conversation around litigation funding, there is a clear uptick in the sector’s adoption in other countries and regions. Latin America is one of these areas experiencing a growth in litigation finance, with countries like Brazil and Mexico leading the way. In an interview with LexLatin, senior counsel for Deminor’s Latin America practice, Paloma Castro, discussed the increase in appetite from in-house lawyers and other industry professionals who seek third-party funding for litigation. In particular, Castro highlights the regularity of arbitration proceedings as a key driver in these countries’ adoption of external funding, given the range of costs that are attached to arbitration. Castro also discusses the lack of a strict regulatory framework around third-party funding in Latin America, noting that the main issue for regulators in the region is around disclosure of funding agreements to try and avoid conflicts of interest for arbitrators. With regard to broader implementation of legislation focused on litigation funding, Castro suggests that funders should take the view that as long as there is no prohibition against the mechanism, then it should be viewed as implicitly allowed within these jurisdictions.

Litigation Funders are Being Courted to Finance Russian Asset Seizure Cases

In a new instance of litigation finance being tied to high-profile and newsworthy events, the possibility of leveraging third-party funding to finance claims against high-net-worth Russian individuals has been raised. Reporting from Bloomberg sheds light on the news that lawyers from McCue Jury & Partners and Mishcon de Reya are pursuing the possibility of funding their proceedings using capital from outside financiers. These claims aim to provide financial restitution to Ukrainian citizens who have suffered during the Russian invasion of their country, which began in February of this year. Speaking for Mischon de Reya, Ben Brandon, a partner for the firm, says that while this would be a landmark use of third-party funding, they have not yet secured guarantees that there are funders who have an appetite for this unique set of cases. Bloomberg’s own reporting reveals that funders may be hesitant due to the unlikelihood that any successful claims could be enforced, and therefore the probability of seeing a return on investment would be in serious doubt. The coalition of lawyers pursuing these actions, the Ukraine Justice Alliance, represent an alternative approach for governments that have established sanctions on Russian individuals, but have been unable to seize the majority of the targeted assets. One of the founding partners at McCue Jury & Partners, Jason McCue, states that there is at least $200 billion worth of potential assets they could pursue, and that such claims would achieve real compensation for working-class Ukrainians.

Experity Ventures Ranks # 682 on the 2022 Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Private Companies

Today, Inc. Magazine revealed that Experity Ventures is # 682 on its annual Inc. 5000 list, the most prestigious ranking of the fastest-growing private companies in America. The list represents a one-of-a-kind look at the most successful companies within the economy's most dynamic segment—its independent businesses. Microsoft, Facebook, Under Armour, Patagonia, Chobani and many other well-known names gained their first national exposure as honorees on the Inc. 5000. Joseph Greco, Founder and Chairman, commented, "We are proud and honored to be recognized for a second consecutive year as part of this prestigious list. Our three-year revenue growth rate of 914% is testimony to us executing our vision every day. Congratulations to our dedicated and talented team and we look forward to continuing our amazing innovation and growth story."  Ryan Silverman, CEO, added "We are very excited to be recognized again and be part of this impressive class of great companies. Experity Ventures growth and performance is a result of a continued focus and relentless execution from our outstanding team. Along with our valued partners, we will stay committed to this ideal every day." The companies on the 2022 Inc. 5000 have not only been successful, but have also demonstrated resilience amid supply chain woes, labor shortages, global events and the ongoing impact of Covid-19. Among the top 500, the average median three-year revenue growth rate soared to 2,144 percent. Together, those companies added more than 68,394 jobs over the past three years. Complete results of the Inc. 5000, including company profiles and an interactive database that can be sorted by industry, region, and other criteria, can be found at www.inc.com/inc5000. The top 500 companies are featured in the September issue of Inc. magazine, which will be available on August 23.  "The accomplishment of building one of the fastest-growing companies in the U.S., in light of recent economic roadblocks, cannot be overstated," says Scott Omelianuk, editor-in-chief of Inc. "Inc. is thrilled to honor the companies that have established themselves through innovation, hard work, and rising to the challenges of today."

Audio: Which? vs. Qualcomm is Shaping ATE Insurance Innovation 

Simon Latham (Head of Competition at Augusta Ventures) was profiled by the Law Society discussing insurance-related concerns regarding Which? vs. Qualcomm. Specifically, Qualcomm's approach of asking for a judge to approve a Which? ATE insurance scheme.  An audio clip of Mr. Latham's Law Society comments have been posted to LinkedIn. Latham describes an ATE scenario where Qualcomm is asking Which? to produce additional information concerning its ATE policy.  Questions from Qualcomm include asking for additional ATE provisions in the instance of any Which? misrepresentations. Many litigation financiers find Qualcomm's ATE approach to be unorthodox. Click here to hear the clip, and learn more about Mr. Latham's insights 

The Canadian Bar Association on ESG Litigation Finance

National Magazine has published new research into the risky market of ESG fraud. The Canadian Bar Association’s National Magazine periodical dives deep into the litigation finance opportunity associated with 'green washing.'  National Magazine predicts an upcoming tsunami of ESG litigation will soon enter Canadian courts.  Paul Rand, (Chief Investment Officer at Omni Bridgeway), says that Omni Bridgeway plans to offer greater access to the Canadian legal system in a bid to tackle ESG litigation. Mr. Rand goes on to say that quality ESG litigation can lead to high legal costs. Omni Bridgeway is researching potential ways to create an ESG Finance Fund to take advantage of valuable ESG litigation opportunities.  Furthermore, Rand alludes to Omni creating bespoke techniques for evaluating an ESG risk management business strategy.

North Wall Capital Finds Strong Value Proposition in ESG Litigation

The importance of ESG cases for litigation funders has become more and more apparent over recent years, and in 2022 alone, we have seen several developments indicating that this trend is not set to slow down. North Wall Capital has been proactive in terms of using litigation funding to back claims against corporations violating environmental standards and protections, most recently providing $100 million in capital to Pogust Goodhead to fight these cases. Speaking with New Private Markets, the chief investment officer and founder of North Wall, Fabian Chrobog, argues that this avenue of financing lawsuits is a key method for ensuring multinational companies face accountability for the environmental harm they may cause. Discussing the agreement with Pogust Goodhead, Chrobog highlighted that this financing is not committed to a specific piece of litigation, but rather a pool of capital that can be leveraged to pursue any case that is ESG-focused. When factoring in the risk of each funding agreement, Chrobog argues that ESG cases are beneficial, as they maintain a higher probability of settlement than most case types, resulting in a strong financial return for the funder. Furthermore, by lending a single sum of capital to a law firm like Pogust Goodhead, North Wall diversifies its claims investment and avoids relying on an individual case for a positive outcome.

Legal Scholar Cites Lack of Transparency as Key Flaw in Litigation Funding

While litigation funding has been a great boost to those seeking access to justice, the system is not without its critics or those who have raised concerns. One area that has recently come under the spotlight is the issue of transparency in funding. Some commentators in the US are comparing this to the lack of transparency in US political donations. Writing for Tuscon, Xavier Segura, a legal scholar and higher education professional, suggests that not only is the lack of transparency an issue in and of itself, it could lead to conflicts of interests between judges who unknowingly have a financial interest in cases they are overseeing. He goes on to speculate that this could also impact national security matters, noting the presence of sovereign wealth funds and state-backed entities in litigation finance; he raises the concern that they could be funding cases to litigate against key national security priorities. As a solution to this issue, Segura argues for voters and legislators to support the Litigation Funding Transparency Act (LFTA), a bill in the US House of Representatives. This legislation would not only require disclosure of the presence of funding agreements, but also make the names of funders publically available. Many litigation funding industry participants have categorized the LFTA as legislative overreach, and a solution in search of a problem. The bill continues to languish in Congress, with no clear momentum at this time.

Legal-Bay Increases Focus on Medical Malpractice Suits 

The medical malpractice field has always been a contentious and active area of litigation, with a volume of cases that is constant and not as affected by economic conditions as other areas of litigation. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that litigation funders are continuing to explore high-value malpractice cases that yield significant returns. In a recent press release, Legal-Bay announced its intention to increase the number of medical practice cases it funds, citing its experience in the field and ability to support claimants through the often long and arduous process.  The funder’s CEO, Chris Janish, highlighted that due to this drawn-out process many plaintiffs suffer financially even while trying to seek compensation, and therefore Legal-Bay’s funding is a crucial aid for those engaging in malpractice claims.

SEC’s Proposed Amendments Might Impact Litigation Funding

As part of a broader effort by the US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to increase transparency around hedge fund investing and reduce risk in the financial system, the spotlight has fallen on the activities of funds engaging in litigation financing investments. In a proposal last week, the SEC would require hedge funds and private investment advisors to confidentially disclose their litigation funding activities and spending. Analysis by Bloomberg Law highlights that there has been a lack of transparency around the extent of hedge fund involvement in the litigation funding industry, even for regulators. However, the new rules would ensure that funds would have to report what portion of their capital was dedicated to litigation financing efforts. This reporting would not be made public. Bloomberg reports that there will certainly be pushback from both hedge funds and Republican officials, who have long fought against any national disclosure regulation. However, this may not deter the SEC, as Scott Masciana, partner at Holland & Knight, points out that as the industry continues to grow, it will become increasingly difficult to escape further oversight from regulators.