Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3311 Articles

High Court Ruling Suggests Funder Liability Is Broader Than Expected

The extent and scope of litigation funding liability is being questioned, after a High Court ruled the funder was liable for costs predating the litigation funding agreement (LFA).  In analysis for Lexology, Jodie Gittins and Chris Ross of RPC noted that this is a signal to funders to not assume their liability in unsuccessful claims will be measured against their portion of funding contributed, nor will it be limited by the start date of their funding agreement.  In the case of The ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank Plc & ors, the claimant had entered into an LFA with Therium in September 2019, to fund the action and partially cover costs that The ECU Group had accrued since November 2018. After the Commercial Court had dismissed all claims and ruled that ECU must pay the defendant’s costs, HSBC asked the court to order Therium to be jointly liable for all costs dating back to the start of proceedings. Mrs Justice Moulder ruled that Therium was indeed liable for these costs as they had (in part) covered these costs for ECU. As the courts have a breadth of options when deciding costs orders, funders should be mindful that in cases where they have the potential to reap a large reward if successful, they may face an equally significant loss when the outcome is reversed.

Omni Bridgeway Discusses Defense Investment Options

Jason Levine (Investment Manager and Legal Counsel at Omni Bridgeway) has a new feature exploring all the ways claimants can consider defense-side legal investment.  Levine outlines several examples of Omni's defense-side investments, including hybrid portfolio products and reverse contingency agreements.  Mr. Levine shares a wide variety of ways Omni can help finance worthwhile claims and provide options for splitting any settlement or award recoupment. Furthermore, Levine outlines the need for claimants and investors to determine what 'success' will mean for a claim, as settlements or awards can vary depending on a multitude of factors.  Click here to learn more.

New UK Funder Aims to Serve Regional Market

The UK litigation funding market has traditionally been very London-centric. However, a new funder aims to change this by providing services regionally targeted to the Midlands and the North. Thaxted Capital, owned by Jack Bradley-Seddon, is looking to fill this gap in the market by offering support for local cases of up to £1m. The new funder is backed by £25m from US private equity fund, Sandton Capital Partners, which will approve funding on a case-by-case basis. According to Legal Futures, Mr Bradley-Seddon wants to not only bring much-need services to these regions, but also take an approach that deals with clients in a direct manner. He stresses that their approach will focus on clear communication, and while he would not set a minimum case size, the average range is predicted to be around £500,000. Thaxted will also avoid charging clients based on a portion of damages, instead calculating charges based on capital deployed. Thaxted Capital will also be supported by Justina Stewart, a commercial barrister from Outer Temple Chambers, in an advisory capacity.

Litigation Finance in China? It’s Not Out of the Question

The growth in third party litigation funding has seen the practice evolve in new markets from Europe to Asia. However, we have yet to experience its adoption in every major market, and with ample funding resources available, there are still plenty of opportunities for the industry to grow. Of all these untapped regions, China stands out from the pack both for its size and scope. In a recent analysis by DLA Piper, Legal Director Jue Jun Lu makes the case for why Chinese entities should look to utilize third party funding, particularly when it comes to the realm of international arbitration. This analysis examines the benefits and opportunities for external finance in both single case and portfolio funding. In the former case, third party funding can be a useful tool in the arsenal of a company to manage cash flow, without negatively impacting financial reporting. Additionally, this approach reduces risk for the company dramatically, whilst also placing the claimant in a position of strength, demonstrating its ability to commit adequate capital to the litigation. With regards to portfolio funding, DLA Piper highlights the flexibility provided to any company involved in multiple disputes, allowing these entities to fund smaller cases that might not otherwise qualify for funding. Leveraging this new avenue of litigation finance would allow Chinese companies to engage with their multinational counterparts, who have already taken advantage of third party funding to bolster their Legal Services sectors.

Availability of Litigation Funding Drives Increase in European Class-Action Claims

The number of class action suits filed in Europe reached new heights in 2021, ending the year with 110 separate claims. The UK was the leading country for class actions, having experienced nearly three-times the previous year’s claims and representing 54% of all European suits. The Global Legal Post examines these findings from a recent CMS study, which highlighted the role of increasing access to litigation funding in the UK and across Europe. CMS litigation and arbitration partner, Kenny Henderson, focuses on the opportunities for funders to reap great reward as long as they are willing to conduct proper due diligence when examining claims. The article also explores the rise in the number of collective proceeding orders raised, with the vast majority of these being stand-alone claims–also a developing trend compared to previous years. Henderson highlights the absence of regulator action being a driving force in the increased activity by claimants and funders.

Soros Pumps £5MM in Litigation Finance Investment 

The Soros Economic Development Fund has issued a £5MM investment into Aristata Capital. This brings Aristata's total fundraise to well over £40MM. The firm has been established to protect social change projects and the environment. The announcement is being touted by those who praise idealistic investments into litigation finance. Aristata will provide a central location for claimants to seek funding, but also assistance in publicizing their cases.  The Soros Economic Development Fund says that the investment will hopefully provide greater access to the rule of law.

CASL Banks $155MM Australian Investment 

CASL, the Australian-based litigation funder, has announced on the company’s LinkedIn profile that it has secured a $155MM AUD investment. According to its website, CASL reports an aggregated length of industry experience totaling 76 years, and a 92% case success rate. Of the nearly 200 claims the company has funded, CASL has realized close to $3 billion in settlements.   Find out more here

New Insights: Litigation and Arbitration Treaties

Interesting insights into the modernization of rules and processes regarding litigation and international arbitration treaties have been published by Litigation Capital Management (LCM). Themes suggested include the growing demand for transparency in third party litigation and arbitration agreements.  LCM reports that the evolution of litigation investment hinges on squashing unnecessary confusion and conflicts throughout the litigation lifecycle. LCM suggests that in some jurisdictions, litigation finance is being debated as illegitimate due to transparency concerns. Hence, investors in legal franchise products and services should emphasize their embrace of transparency.  According to LCM, structural imbalances may preclude bad investments in international claims, meaning the sector has plenty of upside potential going forward.

Legal Dive Explores the Evolution of Legal Investment Economics 

Researchers around the world are providing examples of litigation finance becoming an increasingly important asset class. This, as investors are on the hunt for high return opportunities with compounding portfolio effects.  LegalDive.com has issued a report that investigates the nature of litigation finance in terms of being considered a serious legal asset class. With scrutiny never in short supply, Legal Dive suggests that litigation financiers are on the cusp of real innovative approaches to products and services to help support the rule of international law.  Click here to read more.

Erasmus’ Litigation Investment Innovation Library 

Erasmus Law Review hosts white papers from 10 of Europe's top legal finance scholars. The library highlights major developments and barriers to litigation financiers.  Litigation Finance Journal’s compilation of the Erasmus legal investment library’s LF-based white papers includes a diverse library of subject matter, including regulatory issues in Australia, European litigation funding, and the role of BTE and ATE insurance.  The Erasmus library provides some dense material, yet these deep-dives can provide industry stakeholders with the opportunity to explore niche segments of the market not typically covered in more mainstream publications.

Video: The Stress of Legal Investment  

Mass Tort News (MTN) has produced a new video feature profiling Dr. Maria-Vittoria Carminati (Business Development VP at LexShares) discussing her new book, "The Livable Law Method." Dr. Carminati discusses bespoke techniques and methods for innovators in law managing burnout stress.  Based on her expansive case history specializing in commercial litigation, Dr. Carminati discusses how important it is for attorneys and legal professionals to focus on medical health and mental hygiene. Carminati notes the obvious value in a self care regime. She also highlights the next generation benefits of developing team care exercises for wider exponential benefits for innovative legal franchises.  Dr. Carminati says overcoming burnout has been helpful while in her role at LexShares.

Hackers Are Targeting High Value Litigation

According to Reuters, a group called the World Association Detectives is cultivating an elite group of hackers to aid in litigation case discovery. These hackers come from places such as Germany and India, and will funnel key intelligence to clients all over the world.   Reuters reports these 'hackers for hire' spy on individuals (on both sides of a case) to glean perspectives on facts and figures with the aim of securing high value litigation awards. Hackers leverage a suite of techniques, including spoofing and phishing scams on attorneys in order to gain access to privileged documents that can help sway a litigation battle. In some cases, the hackers sent emails from porn sites, and in others used scandalous news headlines to lure unsuspecting victims into clicking the links.  Claimants, lawyers and litigation funders need to be aware of the shady tactics being deployed against the industry. It seems that in the modern age, no sector is safe from malicious spying.

Italian Corrugated Cardboard Cartel Collective Action 

It is being alleged that Corrugated Cardboard products have been organized under a "cartel structure" in Italy over a 13-year period. Two contract structures have been identified as being designed to manipulate markets, comprising corrugated and packaging cardboard materials.  Deminor is investing in potential victims of the Cartel to join a collective action with efforts to recoup fees and damages associated with cardboard packaging price fixing. Deminor suggests that the Cartel organized sophisticated evidentiary architectures with managed competitive price severities. Estimated damage fines assessed by the Italian Competition Authority are upwards of €287M.  Deminor is seeking potential claimants who purchased packaging from Cartel companies between 2004 and 2017 to apply for review.

Post COVID-19 Legal Finance Outlook

Christopher Bogart (CEO at Burford Capital) recently published an essay profiling the legal finance industry from a post-COVID mindset. Mr. Bogart says that many lessons were gleaned from the pandemic experience. Bogart suggests that delays in litigation calendars due to the pandemic are starting to become less problematic.  Mr. Bogart notes that the legal finance industry continues to evolve as a maturing line of business for many third party investors. Commercial litigation is turning to litigation finance as part of innovative bottom line management.  Bogart explains that post COVID-19 business enterprise could be impacted by tough economic times ahead, and highlights that litigation financiers historically have been party to exponential industry growth in both boom and bust economic cycles.  Mr. Bogart concludes that the takeaway here is that attorneys around the world are turning to legal finance products and services to meet client demands. 

The European Litigation Funders Association to Launch Operations 

Omni Bridgeway, Deminor and Nivalion AG have teamed up to organize the launch of the European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA). Tasked with helping expand legal finance innovation across Europe, ELFA will represent industry best practices before international governments and legal associations.  According to ELFA, Wieger Wielinga (Managing Director, EMEA Omni Bridgeway) will be the inaugural Chairman of the association. Additionally, Marcel Wegmuller (Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Nivalion AG) and Charles Demoulin (Chief Investment Officer of Deminor) will serve as directors.  ELFA says the organization will be open to legal finance franchises of all sizes. Prospective members will need to accept ELFA's code of conduct.  Read more about ELFA's planned organizational activities here: ELFAssociqtion.eu.

Federal Court of Australia approves its power to make future orders for class closure

The following piece was contributed by Lillian Rizio and Max Hensen of Australian law firm, Piper Alderman The Full Federal Courts’ decision in Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure) [2022] FCAFC 47 (Parkin) confirms the courts’ power to issue pre-mediation (and settlement) soft class closure notices to group members. The decision hints at the (positive) appetite of the Federal Court in making future orders for class closure that facilitate a just outcome,[1] simplifies the assessment of quantum prior to settlement, and reduces an element of risk in funded litigation. Opt-Out Nature of Class Actions   The Australian position on class closure orders is set out in Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Act). It serves as a guide for commencing Class Actions in the Federal Court of Australia, and is the reason why they are run on an ‘opt out,’ and ‘open’ basis. By virtue of the Act, class actions are commenced by a representative applicant on behalf of ‘group members.’ Group members are not required to register their interest, provide their consent, or even have knowledge of the proceedings on foot. Whilst the Act provides that a group member might ‘opt-out’ of the proceedings,[2] it does not compel one to submit information prior to settlement or judgment in order to participate. Ultimately, an ‘opt-out’ proceeding means that the size and composition of a class is difficult to quantify in pre-settlement discussions. Uncertainty as to the potential quantum of a claim complicates settlement negotiations. Background The parties in Parkin sought clarification from the Federal Court on its statutory power to issue notices to class members following two 2020 judgments handed down in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. Both judgements considered the court’s powers pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), in sections that mirrored the powers conferred by the Act on the Federal Court. In Haselhurst v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd t/as Toyota Australia,[3] the court found that its statutory powers did no extend to authorise it to make orders relating to class closure before settlement. It rationalised that, a class closure order extinguishes the cause of action of a group member. Therefore, that ordering the issuance of one was beyond the scope of its statutory ‘gap-filling’ power in facilitating a just outcome. In Wigmans v AMP Ltd[4] the court found that making an order to issue a notice for soft closure was contrary to the ‘fundamental precept’ of the class action regime.[5] Here, it rationalised that a group member was entitled to not act prior to settlement, or judgement. Questions In seeking clarity on the courts’ statutory powers, the parties in Parkin filed applications which put two questions to the Court. Namely, whether:
  1. section 33ZF of the Act permitted the Court to make orders to notify group members that, if they failed to register their interest, or opt out by a given date, they would remain a group member, but not be entitled to benefit from settlement (subject to Court approval) (Question One); and
  2. section 33X(5) permitted the court to order that group members be notified that in the event of a settlement, the Applicant would seek an order which (if made) would prevent a group member that had failed to register their interest, or opt out by a given date, from being entitled to benefit from settlement (Question Two).
Findings and Discussion Ultimately, the court found that, whilst no power under s 33ZF of the act was ‘enlivened,’[6] the specific power available under s 33X(5) permitted the court to issue the orders sought by the Applicant in Question Two. As to the precedential decisions from the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, the court in Parkin found that:
  1. the decision in Wigmans[7] was ‘plainly wrong.’ Here, the court affirmed that s 33X(5) conferred a power that was ‘broad and unqualified’[8] with respect to making an order that a notice be issued to group members at ‘any stage’ and of ‘any matter’[9]; and
  2. contrary to Wigmans[10] assertion on ‘fundamental precept,’ the court held that whilst group members may take a passive role in proceedings, they can also be required to act prior to settlement, and that the court may exercise its statutory powers to motivate them to do so.
In its discussion relevant to Question One, the court found that the power conferred by s 33ZF was discretionary and ‘gap filling.’[11] On the facts, the court did not consider that a ‘gap’ applied, given the relevance of s 33X(5) in providing a resolution to the issue at hand. Interestingly, however, the court hinted at its sentiment towards potential future application of s 33ZF in the following comment: ‘one could not foreclose the possibility, depending upon the circumstances of the case, that such an order could advance the effective resolution of proceedings.’[12] Conclusion – What does it Mean The decision of the Full Federal Court, means that parties can expect to be awarded notices that identify the intention of ascertaining future class closure orders in proceedings. This has resulted in the ratification of a strategy in which parties can agree to obligate group members to affirm their interest, or opt-out prior to mediation (for settlement purposes). As for the future of class-closure, the court comments on the potential of the issuance of class closure orders enlivened by s 33ZF in instances where they effect the effective resolution of proceedings. Going forward, competing interpretations of the statutory powers conferred upon the courts leaves room for the High Court to interpret the matter, or perhaps, call for statutory reform.  Given the positive findings as to the ability for pre-mediation notices to be issued, the Federal Court will likely be the preferred jurisdiction for class actions commenced on an open class basis. About the Authors Lillian Rizio, Partner Lillian is a commercial litigator with over 14 years’ experience in high stakes, high value litigation. Lillian specialises in class action, funded and commercial litigation, with expertise across a broad range of sectors including financial services, energy & resources, insurance and corporate disputes. Max Hensen, Lawyer Max is a litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman with a primary focus on corporate and commercial disputes. Max is involved in a number of large, complex matters in jurisdictions across Australia. For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Lillian Rizio, Partner | T: +61 7 3220 7715 | E:  lrizio@piperalderman.com.au -- [1] Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure) [2022] FCAFC 47 at [144]. [2] Part IVA Section 33J Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). [3] (2020) 101 NSWLR 890. [4] (2020) 102 NSWLR 199. [5] Wigmans v Amp Ptd (2020) 102 NSWLR 199 at [89]. [6] Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure) [2022] FCAFC 47 at [1]. [7] Wigmans v AMP Ltd (2020) 102 NSWLR 199. [8] Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure) [2022] FCAFC 47 at [111]. [9] Ibid. [10] Wigmans v AMP Ltd (2020) 102 NSWLR 199. [11] Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure) [2022] FCAFC 47 at [13]. [12] Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure) [2022] FCAFC 47 at [144].

New UK Litigation Funder Rankings 

Conducted by over 200 researchers in more than 200 global jurisdictions, Chambers Research collates more than 6,000 tables that rank some of the world's most important business enterprises.  Chambers has released their UK litigation funding rankings, although they have yet to release their methodology, leaving many to wonder how they arrived at their results. That said, the Chambers Research team organizes their list into five bands, as detailed below:  Band 1 Bench Walk Advisors LLC Harbour Litigation Funding Limited Therium Capital Management Limited Band 2 Augusta Ventures Burford Capital Woodsford Litigation Funding Band 3 Balance Legal Capital Litigation Capital Management Band 4 Asertis Orchard Global Asset Management Omni Bridgeway Band 5 LionFish Litigation Finance Some prominent funders are notably absent, while others are curiously listed. What are your thoughts?

LegalPay Exits First Successful Insolvency Investment 

LegalPay is proud to announce the firm's first successful exit. In less than nine months, LegalPay was able to achieve a 26% return for investors who funded a facility to rescue Yashomati Hospitals.  According to VCCircle.com, LegalPay's CEO Kundan Shahi calls the Yashomati Hospitals deal a landmark deal.  Mr. Shahi says that the nine month turnaround illustrates LegalPay's operational 'excellence.' Shahi notes that third party funding can be a great opportunity for firms looking for help in restoring their business, similar to what Yashomati Hospitals achieved here. Click here to read more about the deal. 

Therium Found Liable for HSBC Court Fees 

The ECU Group Plc recently lost a claim against HSBC Bank, alleging that HSBC was culpable for front running and manipulation of international markets. In a decision that has implications for the funding sector, Therium has been held liable for costs.  One Essex Court reports that Therium has funded a wide variety of ECU claims. Yet the HSBC claims were successfully defended, and Mrs Justice Moulder handed down judgment in a third-party costs application made by HSBC Bank Plc, leaving Therium holding the bag. Therium was held liable for all costs incurred by HSBC from the date when costs were incurred, rather than the execution date of the funding agreement, which was a later date and would have resulted in less costs to cover.  Click here to read more about the case.

The Merging of Finance and Litigation Teams 

Now more than ever, in-house legal and finance professionals can collaborate to build solid affirmative recovery teams. The notion of siloed teams is an obsolete economic framework when it comes to litigation finance, according to new research published by Burford Capital. Burford Capital suggests that the stereotypical barriers between corporate litigation and finance teams should be dismantled as part of firm wide innovation.  The notion that litigation teams incrementally increase firm expenses should be considered antiquated thinking. Even more, Burford suggests that new revenue channels are available to teams that construct aggressive affirmative recovery systems between legal and finance teams.  Click here to read more about Burford's insights on this matter.

Mustang Litigation Funding of Wayzata, Minnesota; Mustang Specialty Funding I and II; James “Jimmy” Beltz, and Kevin Cavanaugh Remove Legal Bay Lawsuit to New Jersey Federal Court

Legal Bay, The Lawsuit Settlement Funding Company, announced today that on June 15, 2022, its recent New Jersey State Court lawsuit filing against Mustang Legal Funding and its principals has been removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage, by the Mustang Entities, James Beltz, and Kevin Cavanaugh. The case now bears the following docket name: Legal Bay LLC v. Mustang Funding LLC, et al., No. 22-cv-3941 (ES) (JBC). The matter has been assigned to District Judge Esther Salas and Magistrate Judge James B. Clark, III. Previously, Legal Bay had notified its business contacts of the suit's filing, but had not made any public statements. With the removal of Legal-Bay's action to Federal Court, Legal Bay believes that the time is now appropriate to disseminate a notice to the ligation funding industry about its lawsuit and its importance to the industry's direction and commercial standards. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, commented, "Our complaint against the Mustang entities and their principals is a public record at this point, and we will let the legal process play out in Federal Court. Legal Bay's purpose in pursuing this matter is not only to protect its own interests from the Mustang defendants' misconduct, but to send a message that their documented, abhorrent behavior is not limited to the Mustang defendants, but commonplace in the litigation and pre-settlement funding industry. These issues will hopefully, at long last, be formally addressed by Legal Bay's lawsuit." Legal Bay has asked the court to dissolve its joint venture with the Mustang entities and is asserting other equitable and legal claims against the Mustang defendants. Legal Bay has reason to believe that, in addition to the equitable relief it is entitled to, its monetary damages are substantial. The exact amount of those damages is not yet fully calculable, but will be determined in due course during the litigation. Janish added: "While we had hoped to avoid the need for a lawsuit, our hands were tied by Mustang's continuing misconduct. Legal Bay looks forward to continuing their work with the industry's leaders and regulators in order to find better ways to protect members engaged in formal business relationships from deceptive and anti-competitive business practices in the industry, as well as initiatives for better disclosures to consumers where previous legislation has fallen short." Legal Bay is represented by Fox Rothschild LLP within its Morristown, New Jersey office, and Timothy P. Kebbe, Esq. of Hawthorne, New York. Mustang and the other defendants are represented by Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, & Friedman LLP, of Manhattan.

WestConnex Construction Claim Funded by Omni Bridgeway Australia 

The Australian office of Omni Bridgeway has organized funding vehicles for land owners impacted by WestConnex roadway construction in Sydney.  Omni says they have partnered with Dentons Australia to puruse a claim against WestConnex, which erected a 33 kilometer underground motorway. The blueprint was designed to connect New South Wales avenues, and was undertaken in conjunction with the Australian government.  Litigation funding agreements will be offered to help repair damage from tunnel vibration, along with water and soil damage from the construction. You can find more information at https://WestConneXClassAction.com.au.

Cash4Cases Inc. Found Guilty of Funding Fraud

Jaeson Birnbaum, suspected owner of Cash4Cases Inc. has been found guilty of a felony in New York State for his role in a litigation funding fraud scheme. Mr. Birnbaum stands to be expelled from the New York State Bar Association for funding crimes. The Postman 24 reports that Mr. Birnbaum conned investors out of funds to run his Cash4Cases Inc. scheme. In September, Birnbaum pleaded guilty to securities fraud. On June 21, a New York appeals court confirmed recommendations for Birnbaum being disbarred. You can read more about the litigation funding scam here.

Augusta Ventures on Cross Border Funding 

Augusta Ventures has published new research into pitfalls associated with self funding cross border dispute resolution. Augusta suggests that international litigation should be supported by third party funding rather than self funding practices that may jeopardize balance sheets. Augusta says that third party funding can foster conditions that promote expeditious international dispute resolutions. Driving better outcomes with legal costs off balance sheet is becoming a priority for large, international companies.  Furthermore, Augusta says funders can help clients with solutions associated with asset recovery. Click here to read more about Augusta's findings.

Federal Court of Australia Rules Litigation Funding Not Managed Investment Scheme

An Australian Federal Court has ruled that litigation finance agreements do not fall under rules regulating managed investment schemes under the Corporations Act of 2001. Many litigation finance scholars are hailing the decision as a win for the industry.  According to the ruling, the characterization of litigation funding arrangements as managed investment schemes, "is a case of placing a square peg into a round hole." Furthermore, the ruling suggests that for litigation funding to be considered responsible to the Corporations Act of 2001, the agreement would need to embody strict characteristics both in context and purpose.  Click here to read more about the ruling in detail.

Insurance Europe Joins Associations Calling for Regulation 

Actuarial Post reports that Insurance Europe has joined a group of associations lobbying European Union legislations to engage regulation to rein in unsavory third party litigation funding practices. According to the Actuarial Post, the profit model behind litigation finance can foster social inflation. The report suggests that third party funders are forced to consolidate profit models, sometimes at the disadvantage of claimants. Actuarial Post says that key advantages can emerge from the European Union enabling regulation to police third party funders. Other associations involved with the letter include Europe (A4E), AmCham EU, BUSINESSEUROPE, DIGITALEUROPE, DOT Europe, EFPIA, Eurochambres, EuroCommerce, European Banking Federation, European Justice Forum, Insurance Europe, MedTech Europe and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

Omni Bridgeway Names Mark Wells Global Head of Portfolio Management 

Mark Wells has been named the Global Head of Portfolio Management at Omni Bridgeway. From Omni's London Office, Mr. Wells will be tasked with expanding the firm’s capital management structures, while also leading the financial structures team.  Mr. Wells comes to Omni from Calunius Capital. Previously, Mr. Wells spent two decades in derivatives trading at JP Morgan Chase and Toronto Dominion.  Mr. Wells says that he plans to help lead Omni Bridgeway's continued growth, particularly in the EMEA region.

International Legal Finance Association on Increasing Liquidity

The Global Legal Post reports that litigation financiers are experiencing increased cash flows with assets jumping more than 11% over the last year. With the jump in figures, Gary Barnett (Executive Director, International Legal Finance Association) says litigation finance is being widely accepted as a professional financial utility to access justice. Global Legal Post says that hedge funds are starting to look to litigation finance as an investment vehicle. Meanwhile, only 10% of cases presented to funders ultimately obtain funding. Funders are also considering a wide variety of additional products and services to offer potential customers.  Raymond van Hulst (EMEA Executive Director at Omni Bridgeway) warns that high liquidity may suffer in the near future. This, as inflation and interest rates are rising. Mr. van Hulst suggests that given these constraints, only the most attractive litigation finance franchises will be successful over the long term.

DLA Piper launches global partnership with UNHCR

DLA Piper today announces a new partnership with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) that will see the two organisations working collaboratively to develop innovative responses to the global refugee crisis, enhance refugee integration and advocate for impactful, systemic change. During the first three years, DLA Piper will provide pro bono support worth over $3.7m and contribute financially to the agency’s global programmes.

The partnership has been developed in collaboration with UK for UNHCR, an organisation responsible for developing humanitarian partnerships with British corporations that support global relief efforts for refugees.

DLA Piper and UNHCR already have a long-established relationship spanning over ten years. Since 2012, the firm has provided more than 8,500 hours pro bono legal support valued at over USD 3,000,000 to UNHCR. This new phase of the partnership will focus on the co-development of innovative responses to the refugee crisis, including innovative finance models and impact investment, among other key areas.

According to UNHCR, there are now more than 100 million people who have been forcibly displaced from their homes. The number of displaced people has increased every year over the past decade and now stands at the highest level since records began. These unprecedented levels of displacement represent a global humanitarian emergency. The impact is especially pronounced on children, who account for 30% of the world's population, but 42% of all forcibly displaced people.

DLA Piper has long-standing commitment to working to protect the rights of refugees, displaced people and those who are stateless, with a particular focus on supporting the most vulnerable groups, including women, children and LGBT+ people. Human displacement has a number of components that are relevant to businesses as it affects how companies manage the relationship with their workforce, their value chain, the societies in which they operate and the political environment. Over the past ten years, the firm has worked to address the root causes and consequences of displacement by providing legal recognition for people on the move and supporting inclusion into destination countries.

This partnership with UNHCR is an extension of this work and DLA Piper’s ongoing commitment to protecting and upholding the rights of displaced people.

Simon Levine, Global Co-CEO, DLA Piper, said: “We are honoured to enhance our partnership with UNHCR. This is a unique opportunity to contribute to the organisation’s work and, ultimately, support displaced people all over the world. The current crisis in Ukraine is just one example of why UNHCR’s work is so critical.

“Legal protections are especially important when people’s lives are uprooted and they face challenges such as lack of basic shelter, violence, exploitation and restrictions on freedom of movement. As part of this new phase of the partnership, we will be working with UNHCR to support a fairer, more effective system, to develop new approaches and to help foster inclusion as people rebuild their lives.”

Jean-Pierre Douglas-Henry, Managing Director, Sustainability & Resilience, DLA Piper added: “This exciting partnership means we can amplify our work to protect the rights of displaced people globally. The partnership will involve innovative approaches to long-term issues that we hope will lead to positive and lasting change. At this crucial time our firm is excited to be collaborating with an organisation that is focused on building a better future for refugees.”

Emma Cherniavsky, Chief Executive of UK for UNHCR said: “We greatly value this new partnership with DLA Piper which builds on ten years of valuable support for UNHCR’s work. People fleeing conflict and persecution are amongst the most vulnerable people in the world, with many on the front lines of the climate crisis or facing significant barriers to employment, and DLA’s partnership will help deliver innovative solutions to support them.”

About DLA Piper

DLA Piper is a global law firm with lawyers located in more than 40 countries throughout the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, positioning us to help clients with their legal needs around the world. In certain jurisdictions, this information may be considered attorney advertising. dlapiper.com

Video: Aera-IP on Litigation Finance in Europe and Abroad  

Patent and trademark litigation is forecast to increase as Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) opens in Q4-22, or Q1-23. Aera-IP is a Nordic consultancy focused on serving clients with various EU IP claims. Aera-IP has published a series of videos profiling what legal professionals should expect when the UPC opens, and what funding opportunities may be available to inventors.  Aera-IP’s video discussions on the future of IP litigation are expansive, with four features totaling nearly two hours of discussion. Aera-IP features Stephanie Southwick (Investment Manager and Legal Counsel at Omni Bridgeway), in a near half-hour video discussing litigation investment insights for funding EU IP claims.  With the opening of Europe’s UPC, many are forecasting a wide range of international patent and trademark claims that could set historic precedent in terms of inventor protections. Click here to check out Aera-IP’s video discussions.