The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  Executive Summary

• Despite its size, the Intellectual property (“IP”) asset class has eluded the attention of most asset managers due to its underlying legal complexities
• The litigation finance industry understands the opportunity, but is solely focused on litigation involving IP
• A void exists in the financing market, which IP-focused Private Credit managers have begun to fill via credit-oriented strategies designed to drive value maximization

Slingshot Insights:

• Secular shifts in the economy have allowed IP to assume an increasing share of corporate value
• IP is an emerging asset class that has begun to garner the attention of asset managers and insurers
• There are various IP-centric investment strategies that do not involve litigation.
• IP-focused Private Credit funds approach IP in a holistic fashion, leveraging numerous ways that IP creates value
• Investors need to be aware that investing in IP presents unique risks that warrant input from operational and legal IP specialists
• IP Credit provides a different risk/reward profile for investors as compared to commercial litigation finance, which tends to have more binary risk

When I started reviewing and assessing managers for potential investment in the commercial litigation finance asset class five years ago, there were a small number of managers that would consider the most complex area of intellectual property litigation, namely patent infringement.  Oh, how things have changed!  Today, there are many litigation finance managers who will at least consider making an investment in IP litigation, although still relatively few that will follow through on providing a commitment. One of the areas in which I am intrigued is the application of credit to intellectual property (“IP”) and using the value of patents (amongst other forms of intellectual property) as security for the loan, the so-called Intellectual Property Private Credit (“IP Credit”) asset class.  While this is, strictly speaking, a credit asset class (as you will see from this article), it sits adjacent to, and sometimes intersects with, commercial litigation finance.  Nevertheless, I do think it is a subset of the broader intangible finance market, and since value is inherently derived from intellectual property, and on occasion, litigation, it often gets lumped in within the legal finance category. In an effort to assess the IP Credit asset class, I reached out to an established manager, Soryn IP Capital (“Soryn”), to obtain a better understanding of how the sector operates and why investors should be interested in this asset class.  Soryn is co-founded by two well-known investors in the IP space, Michael Gulliford and Phil Hartstein, who have a combined four decades of IP experience. Background Despite a major shift in corporate balance sheet asset composition from tangible to intangible in recent decades, stemming largely from the secular shift to a knowledge based (i.e. technology) economy, there has been surprisingly little growth in the number of alternative asset managers with IP-focused investment strategies.  What growth has occurred with respect to IP-specific strategies has largely been confined to the IP litigation finance space.  There, non-recourse capital is advanced from a litigation funder to a claim holder to pursue what is often single event IP litigation, featuring a binary outcome set. The result has been an mis-allocation of risk-adjusted capital to companies and academic institutions in IP-intensive sectors that either do not plan to litigate, or that will be litigating, but only as part of a holistic and diversified business and/or IP licensing strategy.  While these IP owners may seek capital to finance objectives such as non-dilutive growth, technology licensing or royalty audits and monetization, often the IP owner must choose between a litigation funder that does not specialize in broader financial solutions, or a financing source that is not specialized in IP.  Neither option threads the needle to provide what these entities are looking for: an appropriately-structured and priced capital structure solution. Recently, IP-focused managers with credit-oriented strategies have come into focus, as they are targeting this gap in the market.  In addition to Soryn, the hedge fund manager Fortress has an existing IP Credit fund, and Aon is currently raising capital for a debut IP Credit fund (which may have ulterior motives rooted in intellectual property insurance, which is not to say the two can’t co-exist and complement one another). In many ways, these funds resemble a hybrid of private debt and specialty finance, as they have the flexibility to invest across the capital structure through highly-structured debt, preferred, equity, and other bespoke financial contracts. Reflecting their specialization, however, these funds’ management possess an interdisciplinary expertise in IP, and are concentrated on opportunities where the underlying asset value supporting the investment is intellectual property.  Given the flexibility within these strategies, and the skillset of those managing the capital, this new genre of IP-focused investor will likely be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors. IP VALUE PROPOSITION According to recent reports, intangible assets represent ~90% of the S&P 500 market value compared to ~30% in 1985.  Other studies estimate that intellectual property — a subset of the intangible asset class — represents more than a third of the market value of US publicly traded companies. Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary/artistic works, designs and symbols/names/images used in commerce.  The primary forms of intellectual property are:

• Patents: protect inventions and discoveries
• Trade Secrets: protect valuable information that is intentionally kept secret
• Copyright: protect artistic works in a fixed medium of expression
• Trademarks: protect “signs” associating products and services to an owner

While each form of IP offers different protections, the value of each lies in its legally proscribed, exclusionary right that prohibits third parties from practicing or “infringing” the IP without permission.  It is this exclusionary right that promotes a healthy competition and innovation ecosystem by, for instance, incentivizing R&D, encouraging investment, protecting market share, and allowing the licensing of these rights to either a) promote synergistic business relationships or b) stop unauthorized copying. Several data points highlight the value attributable to IP licenses that are struck to promote synergistic business relationships, or to resolve enforcement scenarios. The following statistics help contextualize the significance of the IP value proposition. IP VALUE CREATION IP gains sufficient value to form the foundation for a financial transaction, when third party commercial actors have either begun to use the IP or desire to use it in the future.  When this situation occurs, IP rights can create value in several ways, including:

• IP rights can be licensed to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
• IP rights can be exploited to negotiate cross-licenses that allow IP owners access to sought-after technologies;
• IP rights can be sold to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
• IP rights can be enforced against third parties that are practicing the underlying IP without a license;
• IP rights can serve as the basis for significant insurance policies;
• IP rights can be the principal basis for an M&A transaction, and are a key driver of M&A activity;
• IP rights can be central to value creation following a business separation or spin-off transaction;
• IP rights can facilitate the formations of JVs for co-development of new technologies, which increase enterprise value;
• IP rights can be monetized through the sale of all or part of contracted royalty payments associated with particular IP

In turn, IP owners and managers (e.g.  companies, academic and research institutions, and law firms), can leverage these sources of IP value to raise debt and equity capital in several ways, including: Although IP offers a unique and significant source of value, many owners and managers of IP experience difficulty when attempting to leverage their IP to achieve an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital due to the lack of IP expertise, and/or transactional flexibility among the investing community. As such, the new genre of IP Private Credit funds may prove to be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors.  IP CREDIT IP Credit generally involve highly structured, privately negotiated financial contracts of varying types.  Counterparties are often companies possessing valuable IP portfolios, which are underserved by the capital markets. The strategy seeks to provide these IP owners with differentiated financing solutions through flexible and creative structures that offer attractive risk-adjusted returns. Just as private debt funds take different shapes and sizes, so too does an IP Credit fund.  Portfolio composition, while manager or mandate-specific, focuses on financing opportunities across the capital structure wherein IP forms a material component of a transaction’s value proposition.  Where the underlying IP, and/or associated rights or income streams can be assigned predictable licensing, monetization, and/or sale value, various transactions can be structured to leverage or maximize the value of the associated IP. Investment Types Investment types in the Private Credit strategy include senior loans, loans secured by IP, loans secured by legal judgments, loans secured by insurance policies, convertible debt instruments, highly structured preferred equity, common equity, and warrants. The types of credit products involved in an IP Credit strategy are generally not limited. Deal Structuring The duration of Private Credit investments is generally one to five years, and expected returns on these investments will vary based on the existence of negotiated downside protections. The underlying investments in an IP-focused Private Credit Strategy can feature a plurality of terms and structures designed to solve for an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital, including:

• Delayed draw funding schedules and performance-based milestone provisions
• Events of default / material adverse event scenarios
• Minimum cash / treasury requirements
• Prepayment protection (make-wholes, yield maintenance, non-call provisions)
• Structural and / or contractual seniority over IP or other assets
• Affirmative and negative covenants / financial covenants
• Warrants or other instruments with equity-like kickers
• IP-backed securitizations
• Credit enhancements via IP-related insurance policies

Industry Focus While the strategy is generally industry agnostic, investments are often placed in IP-intensive industry groups, including technology, life sciences, materials sciences, automotive, semiconductors, telecommunications, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals.  The hallmark of foundational IP that may serve as the basis for an IP-focused investment are assets protecting key innovations in a field, which an entrant will need to license to practice the technology. Investment Team Managers of IP-focused funds often possess a multidisciplinary IP expertise, with additional expertise in credit or distressed strategies.  Such expertise allows management teams focused on IP-specific strategies to not only appropriately measure risk and value potential, but to appropriately structure such transactions to capture value and mitigate downside.  Management’s IP experience also serves as an advantage when sourcing deals from among counterparties seeking a value-add financial partner with a deep understanding of IP.  In Soryn’s case, for example, co-founders Michael and Phil possess investment, legal and executive experience which allows them to assist counterparties with their legal, operational, and financial strategy planning with the goal of improving the risk-reward profile of the underlying investments. Deal Sourcing Because multidisciplinary IP expertise is a prerequisite for managers in the IP space, barriers to entry remain high and competition for deals is less severe than that of other asset classes.  Typical counterparties involve operating companies (both private and public) and universities that own foundational IP or revenue streams associated with such IP, as well as law firms representing such entities. Use of Proceeds IP-focused Private Credit transaction proceeds may be used for general business purposes and IP-related expenses or investments.  This is an important distinction between IP Litigation Finance and an IP-focused Private Credit, with the latter allowing for significantly greater flexibility in terms of the use of proceeds. Insurability Demonstrating the quantifiable value of intellectual property, the insurance industry has recently introduced products aimed at insuring various aspects of intellectual property.  Such products include:

• Collateral protection insurance for credit deals where IP serves as the collateral package;
• Judgement preservation insurance, to insure against an adverse appellate result following an IP owner trial win; and
• IP litigation insurance, to insure against the associated costs and expenses of being sued for patent infringement.

Not only do such products demonstrate the insurance industry’s growing comfort with IP as an asset class, they also present downside protection scenarios for a variety of IP-centric financings. In the next part of our 2-part series, we will be applying the theory above into practice by reviewing a case study of two financings by a public entity. Slingshot Insights Secular shifts in the economy should be forcing investors to think about value in different ways.  It’s indisputable that intellectual property is clearly the basis for technology company valuations, and therefore value must be attributable to IP when considering financing alternatives.  While understanding the value inherent in intellectual property can be difficult, fund managers with specific expertise exist to allow investors to allocate capital in an appropriate risk adjusted manner. The fact that the insurance industry is now providing insurance products geared toward intellectual property is a testament to how far the industry has come, and how significant the opportunity is, and perhaps much less risky than one would think, if approached prudently. I believe the IP Credit asset class has a bright future ahead, as existing players have had great success producing consistent returns in a sector that one might otherwise believe to be volatile. As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Slingshot Capital inc. is involved in the origination and design of unique opportunities in legal finance markets, globally, investing with and alongside institutional investors. Soryn IP Capital Management LLC (“Soryn”) is an investment management firm focused on providing flexible financing solutions to companies, law firms and universities that own and manage valuable intellectual property (“IP”) assets.  Soryn’s approach employs strategies, including private credit, legal finance, and specialty IP finance, which enable it to invest across a diversity of unique IP-centric opportunities via investments structured as debt, equity, derivatives, and other financial contracts.  The Soryn team is comprised of seasoned IP and investment professionals, allowing the firm to directly source opportunities less travelled by traditional alternative asset managers. INFORMATION SOURCES

• IP-Based Financing of Innovative Firms (OECD)
  • https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/Chapter9-KBC2-IP.pdf
• Financial Development (World Bank)
  • https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/gfdr/gfdr-2016/background/financial-development
• The Puzzle in Financing with Trademark Collateral
  • https://www.law.uh.edu/ipil/symposium/prior/2018/6778-the-puzzle-in-financing-with-trademark-collateral.pdf
• Patent Aversion: An Empirical Study of Patents Collateral in Bank Lending (1980-2016)
  • https://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol9/Online_Nguyen.pdf
• Insurers are Credit Facilitators
  • https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/insurance-driver-econ-growth-053018.pdf
• Asset Based Lending: IP
  • https://www.appraisaleconomics.com/asset-based-lending-intellectual-property/
• The Role of Insurance in Ensuring Financial Market Liquidity
  • https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1111%2F1468-0440.00120.pdf
• Maximizing Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets
  • https://www.issuelab.org/resources/3304/3304.pdf
• Private Credit Strategies (Cambridge Associates)
  • https://caia.org/sites/default/files/0._private_credit_strategies_an_introduction.pdf
• Types of Intangible Assets (ITR)
  • https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/b1fyg9wg61n4m9/intangible-assets-in-the-media-and-entertainment-industries-in-depth-analysis
• The Intellectual Property (IP) Audit: An Effective IP Asset Management Tool (Strook)
  • https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0883911503008001011
• Sanctions for Trade Secret Thieves Part of Senate-Passed Bill (Bloomberg)
  • https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/sanctions-for-trade-secret-thieves-part-of-senate-passed-bill
• Intellectual Property Theft/Piracy (FBI Website)
  • https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft
• Financial Development (World Bank)
  • https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/gfdr/gfdr-2016/background/financial-development
• The Decline of Secured Debt (NBER)
  • https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26637/w26637.pdf
• A Century of Capital Structure: The leveraging of Corporate America
  • http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~mrrobert/resources/Publications/100YearsJFE2015.pdf
• Why Did Universities Start Patenting (Social Studies of Science, Dec 2008)
  • https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306312708098605
• Intellectual Property and the US Economy (USTPO)
  • https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-motion/intellectual-property-and-us-economy

An investor group led by asset recovery funder Drumcliffe LLC has purchased 1,138,245 shares in Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NASDAQ:OMEX) (“Odyssey”), from Epsilon Acquisitions LLC in a private transaction exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The purchase price was not disclosed. Odyssey will not receive any proceeds from this transaction. Odyssey is a deep-ocean exploration company that discovers, validates and develops high value seafloor resources in an environmentally responsible manner. Odyssey has a diversified mineral portfolio that includes projects controlled by it and other projects in which it is a minority owner and service provider. Odyssey is currently pursuing a nearly $3 billion NAFTA arbitration claim against the Republic of Mexico. The claim relates to Mexico’s denial of an off-shore dredging license previously granted to an Odyssey subsidiary for one of the largest untapped phosphate deposits in the world. Drumcliffe has been providing financing to Odyssey to support its arbitration efforts since 2019. “In our view, Odyssey’s recently published Reply to Mexico’s Counter-Memorial in the NAFTA arbitration only reinforces the merits of Odyssey’s claim and the restitution they deserve,” said James C. Little, Drumcliffe’s CEO. Several long-term Odyssey investors and investment funds, including major Odyssey investor FourWorld Capital Management, and Greywolf Capital Management LP are also part of the investor group. About Drumcliffe LLC Drumcliffe LLC is the world’s leading provider of asset recovery finance to the victims of global fraud, corruption, and abuse of power. Additional details can be found at www.drumcliffepartners.com. Forward Looking Information This Press Release may include "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. Certain factors that could cause outcomes to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are set forth in "Risk Factors" in Part I, Item 1A of Odyssey’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, and Odyssey’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The possible outcomes of the matter described herein will depend upon unpredictable future events, many of which are beyond Odyssey's or Drumcliffe’s control and, accordingly, no assurance can be given that any desirable outcome will occur.

Law Finance Group, a leading commercial litigation finance company, today announced that Lauren J. Harrison has joined the firm as Vice President/Investment Counselor, based in Houston, Texas. Ms. Harrison will work with Law Finance Group’s underwriting and business development teams, where she will focus on evaluating the merits of proposed investments while also identifying and managing growth opportunities in the civil litigation space. “Lauren’s deep expertise in antitrust, intellectual property, and commercial litigation, in addition to her long-standing relationships across the AmLaw 200, will be tremendous assets as we continue to grow our business,” said Kevin McCaffrey, Law Finance Group’s CEO. “We are thrilled to welcome Lauren to our team as we add scale to our platform to take further advantage of the exciting opportunities in the litigation finance markets.” Ms.Harrison joins Law Finance Group after practicing for more than 30 years as a civil litigator for leading law firms int he Houston area. Most recently, she was a Partner in the Litigation Practice Group of Jones Walker LLP, where she represented clients active in the areas of alternative energy development, traditional oil exploration and production, energy infrastructure, chemical and mechanical engineering, software development, entertainment, media distribution, and manufacturing. Earlier in her career, Ms. Harrison worked as a Partner in the litigation departments of Conner & Winters and Vinson & Elkins LLP, and before practicing, served as a judicial clerk to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the late Honorable Eugene A. Wright in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She received her J.D.fromCornell UniversityLawSchool, where she graduated magna cum laude and was elected into the Order of the Coif, and earned her B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, where she graduated magna cum laude as a member of Phi Beta Kappa. AboutLaw FinanceGroup Founded in 1994, Law Finance Group is a leading litigation funding firm focused on investing in high-value civil litigation opportunities.LawFinance Group partners with law firms and their clients to mitigate risk, improve cashflows, and leverage existing assets in the face of litigation risk. The firm has offices in Mill Valley, New York, and Austin. For more information, visit www.lawfinance.com.

Liti Capital’s wLITI token, a wrapped version of the Swiss company’s LITI equity token, lists on Changelly PRO, $wLITI pairs with BTC and USDT are now available for trading. This comes less than a week after listing on Bitcoin.com Exchange and less than two weeks on HitBTC. The Changelly PRO team has expressed their warm welcome to the litigation financing token. “We are happy to welcome $wLITI to our big family of carefully curated cryptocurrencies and hope that our users will gain maximum benefits from this collaboration. We are proud to partner with a company that provides financial resources, strategic solutions and renowned connections to the best law firms worldwide to help plaintiffs obtain court awards for damages or losses they have suffered,” says a Changelly PRO spokesperson. Liti Capital, a Swiss-based blockchain private equity fund specializing in raising capital for legal cases, is making waves in traditional investing by bringing litigation financing to the masses, an investment practice traditionally monopolized by hedge fund heavyweights and elite investors. Litigation financing is the practice of bringing in investors to cover the cost of a lawsuit or arbitration in exchange for a portion of the profit. Litigation financing specialists, such as Liti Capital, purchase litigation assets for cases they deem to have a high chance of winning. “We appreciate the amazing support that established exchanges such as Changelly PRO have shown for our $wLITI token. With high profile projects in the blockchain and decentralized finance spaces finally attracting mainstream interest, we are excited to explore the possibilities for $wLITI as a wrapped version of an equity token that offers regular people the chance to invest in an asset class that previously wasn’t available to them,” says Liti Capital CEO Jonas Rey. $wLITI: an ERC-20 Wrapped Version of Equity Token $LITI wLITI is an ERC-20 wrapped version of the LITI equity token. Launched on June 29, 2021, the wLITI token is suitable for trading on centralized exchanges (CEXes) like Changelly PRO, and also on DEXes, whereas the LITI token is only available through liticapital.com after meeting KYC requirements. Liti Capital uses the blockchain to manage its share registry. Development of its own blockchain-based case management tools is on its roadmap. wLITI can be exchanged for LITI at a token buyer’s request via Liti Capital’s app or website, which converts LITI to wLITI at a 1:5000 ratio and vice versa. The tokens will always maintain this ratio. The buyer is then able to trade their wLITI freely. Liti Capital does not directly sell wLITI. LITI is a true digital share of Liti Capital that has voting rights, pays dividends and is protected under Swiss law. LITI is purposely not designed to be on exchanges at this time. Both tokens represent Liti Capital, whose mantra is “Private Equity for All.” Liti Capital works exclusively in a single form of private equity – Litigation Finance, also called third party funding. This asset class has remained almost entirely exclusive to hedge funds and venture capitalists since its inception several decades ago. Litigation Finance is the practice of financing all or part of a legal case on behalf of a plaintiff for an agreed upon percentage of the court award. Once Liti Capital purchases a portion of ownership of a case, it provides capital that can be used in many ways: legal fees, case management and strategy, expert witnesses, intelligence work and whatever else is needed to give the plaintiff the best chance of winning the case and collecting the award. The portion owned by Liti Capital becomes a “litigation asset” that backs the LITI token. On 19 August 2021, Liti Capital announced that it was funding a claim against Binance, which would enable affected individuals to pursue compensation in relation to the exchange failing on 19 May 2021. This failure resulted in the trading accounts (including Futures, Margin, and Leveraged Token products) of at least 700 and potentially thousands of individuals being effectively untradeable for hours, causing traders to suffer losses that could exceed one hundred million dollars. Listing Details About Liti Capital Switzerland-based Liti Capital is a Swiss limited liability company specializing in litigation finance and fintech. Liti Capital buys litigation assets to fund lawsuits and provides a complete strategic solution along with connections to top law firms to help clients win their cases. Tokenized shares of the company lower the barrier of entry for retail investors and give token holders a vote in the company’s decision-making process. Dividends are distributed to LITI token holders upon the success of the plaintiff. Jonas Rey, co-founder of Liti Capital, also heads Athena Intelligence, one of the most successful intelligence agencies in Switzerland. His two co-founders, Andy Christen and Jaime Delgado, bring operational, innovation and technical skills to round out the leadership team. Liti Capital recently onboarded seasoned industry leader David Kay as chief information officer and executive chairman. Boasting more than a decade of experience as funding partner and portfolio manager of a billion-dollar private equity fund in the litigation financing space, Kay successfully enforced what was at the time the largest international arbitration award in history, bringing in over $1 billion in cash and securities. For project information, please read the Whitepaper. For token distribution, please read Tokenomics. Liti Capital Official Channels Liti Capital Website: https://liticapital.com Liti Capital Telegram: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official Liti Capital Telegram Announcements: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official_ANN Liti Capital LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/liti-capital Liti Capital Twitter: https://twitter.com/liticapital Liti Capital Medium: https://medium.com/@liticapital Liti Capital Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/liticapital About Changelly Changelly provides an ecosystem of products and services that enables customers to have a one-stop-shop experience when engaging with crypto. Operating since 2015, Changelly acts as an intermediary between crypto exchanges and users, offering access to 200+ cryptocurrencies that can be effortlessly swapped within 10 minutes on desktop and on the go via the Changelly mobile app. In 2020, Changelly branched out to accommodate the needs of traders. Changelly PRO has been built as a platform focused on the customer’s needs, effectively enabling retail buying and selling of digital tokens and coins. Piggy-backing on the great support system found within Changelly, Changelly PRO will provide the community with high limits, effective pricing, fast execution and 24/7 live support. Learn more about Changelly: Changelly Website: changelly.com Changelly PRO website: pro.changelly.com Twitter: twitter.com/Changelly_team

The company is continuing its flexible approach to its recruitment activity. Rather than advertise specific job roles, it is keen to hear from anyone who is excited about the company’s growth and direction, whether they have experience in litigation funding, artificial intelligence (AI), business development or fund management, or have a broader litigation background. Apex CEO Maurice Power says: “We are recruiting across the company, including to develop further our AI and predictive analysis capabilities. It’s our use of these disciplines that enables us to predict case outcomes, settlements, and timelines, but we aren’t standing still. We’ll continue to lead the way in developing and using innovative tools to bring even more sophistication to prediction and analysis. “The company is still less than two years old, but we have already achieved significant growth in case numbers. There’s a high demand for the funding of small/mid-size claims, which provides access to justice for many who are unable to pursue this through their own means. This demand, along with our use of AI to inform risk assessment, has seen us become one of the highest volume providers of non-recourse litigation funding in the UK.” Apex also continues to invite additional investors to support its growing pipeline of applications for litigation funding. It recently began marketing a £50m investor fund, providing opportunities as an attractive alternative to equity or fixed income investments. Interested parties are encouraged to email Apex via enquiries@apexlitigationfinance.com to express an interest in recruitment or investment opportunities. About Apex Litigation Finance Limited Apex Litigation Finance Limited is a company which brings together experienced individuals from the litigation funding, legal and finance sectors to provide third party litigation funding to litigants (corporates, liquidators, and individuals) who are unable to pursue a claim due to the prohibitive cost of litigation. Although the litigant’s case may have merits, uncertainty over the total costs and the potential risk of being ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, should they lose the case, prohibits access to justice for many claimants. Following an assessment of the merits of the litigant’s case, through use of Artificial Intelligence (software utilising predictive analytics to ascertain the likely outcome, duration, and settlement value of the case), legal and commercial expertise, Apex will commit funds to pay legal and other costs associated with the case in return for an agreed share of any award upon a successful conclusion. If there is no recovery, or if the case is lost, there is no debt for the litigant to repay.

Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today released the following statement on its performance for the six months ended June 30, 2021 and on matters relating to its potential conversion to US GAAP. Burford is scheduled to release its interim results on September 9, 2021. All figures in this disclosure are unaudited and presented on a Burford-only basis, unless otherwise stated. Certain definitions are provided below; additional definitions, reconciliations and information are set out in Burford's 2020 annual report, available at www.burfordcapital.com.

• Record-breaking levels of new commitments and deployments
• Portfolio returns rose and loss rates fell but case progress was relatively quiet with COVID delays noted
• Considering US GAAP conversion at year-end
• Non-cash accruals in the first half result in net accounting loss for the period; positive result on a cash basis
• Liquidity position very strong with more than $430 million of Burford-only liquidity on hand

New business

• $500+ million in new commitments; nearly $400 million in deployments

We saw robust levels of new business in the first half. We made new capital provision-direct commitments of over $500 million Group-wide, of which $284 million was Burford-only, more than four times higher than the first half of last year and above our prior record levels in the second half of 2019. We deployed $399 million Group-wide, of which $215 million was Burford-only, to a combination of new and existing capital provision-direct assets, more than three times our 1H 2020 level and well in excess of our prior record deployments in 1H 2018. Our trend towards larger and more complex new matters continued. Of our 14 new matters, none had commitment levels under $5 million while six were $20 million or above, including a new matter to which we committed and deployed $138 million on balance sheet and $139 million for our SWF partner between BOF-C and a new sidecar. This matter revolves around a number of antitrust claims against a large, financially strong multinational. This level of activity suggests that the slowdown in new business in early 2020 from COVID has moderated and that we are finding considerable opportunities to deploy capital. COVID delays and portfolio progress

• Returns rose to 95% ROIC and realized losses fell to 0.5%
• 43% of matters have seen COVID delays
• Realized gains of $77 million in the period

We saw some strong portfolio successes in the first half – including achieving our full $103 million entitlement in the Akhmedov judgment enforcement matter (in addition to more than $5 million received in prior periods), validating our decision to fund matters like that despite their noise. Our returns increased somewhat, to 95% ROIC on concluded capital provision-direct assets since inception, driven by the 216% ROIC (and 67% IRR) on the Akhmedov matter on a GBP basis. On a USD basis, the Akhmedov matter generated a 233% ROIC (and a 71% IRR). We also had a remarkably low realized loss rate for the period of 0.5% of average portfolio at cost. However, as we have previously discussed, multiple waves of COVID have continued to have an impact on the pace and progression of matters in our portfolio. These issues are only a matter of timing; no clients have discontinued cases because of COVID delays and, indeed, as a result of how we often price our deals, our ultimate returns may increase because of the passage of time. We believe that 43% of our matters have incurred COVID-related delays, ranging from court date postponements to delays in the provision of discovery to slower settlement activity given the absence of a looming trial date to engender settlement. As a result (and perhaps due also just to normal volatility in portfolio activity), the portfolio as a whole was quiet in the period and generated lower levels of capital provision income than comparative periods. In short, almost nothing bad happened – just less happened than in some other periods. We had capital provision-direct realizations of $142 million during 1H 2021, on which we will see realized gains of approximately $77 million for the period. US GAAP conversion

• Consideration of converting to US GAAP for December 31, 2021 reporting
• Some balance sheet adjustments expected

We expect to remain a foreign private issuer for US purposes in 2022; our 2020 annual report discusses that status in depth. However, notwithstanding retaining foreign private issuer status for another year, we may well nonetheless proceed with our conversion to US GAAP; the Board will make a decision on that issue at its October meeting. If we do convert to US GAAP, our first half 2021 interim report will be our last report under IFRS, and beginning with our financial statements as of December 31, 2021, we would begin reporting under US GAAP. While most elements of our financial reporting would remain the same under both IFRS and US GAAP, including with respect to fair value, we expect to see an increase in both assets and liabilities due to changes in the approach to consolidation of subsidiaries. We will provide more details of these and any other adjustments in due course. Our consideration of converting to US GAAP has also caused us to examine the accounting practices of comparable US finance firms to identify certain common practices adopted by US GAAP issuers as we discuss below. Burford's compensation practices Burford's compensation practices are relevant to the accounting discussion that follows, so we provide detail here about our approach to incentive compensation. Burford uses four compensation components: base salary, annual bonus, stock grants and participation in the actual cash performance of litigation matters (which we call "carry" even though it is not technically participation in carried interest). We discuss our compensation practices in greater detail in our annual reports. Burford does not pay any incentive compensation – carry or bonus – based on non-cash fair value changes in our assets. We award carry on a vintage year basis. Thus, each year, we award eligible employees the right to receive a portion of the realized gains generated over time by the matters we originate financing for in that year. Then, in each following year, we look at the realized performance of all of the matters in a vintage in that year and make carry payments based on their collective performance in that year, so that realized losses reduce realized gains. So, for example, an eligible employee who joined Burford in 2017 will have received awards for each of the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 vintages, and we will test the performance of each of those vintages in each succeeding year and make carry payments accordingly. Those payments continue until each vintage is fully resolved. We set out below the percentage of realized gains in each vintage that has been awarded as carry. No carry applies to vintages prior to 2015. Change in compensation expense accruals

• Move to non-cash accrual of compensation expense on fair value
• One-time non-cash accrual of $45 million, driven by YPF-related asset carrying value

Given that we do not pay employee carry on the basis of unrealized fair value gains, pursuant to IAS 19 we have historically recognized compensation expense only upon realizations from our assets, without regard to fair value movements. However, as more cases have concluded and we have further validation of our predictive models in general and across asset types, our confidence in our modeling and valuation methodology has continued to increase and we believe it is appropriate to change our accounting estimate of compensation expense under IFRS and accrue compensation expense related to our carry plan as we make fair value adjustments. Moreover, we note that this is also the practice of a number of comparable US GAAP issuers, and we also believe that matching potential future gains with potential future expenses is desirable. Given our generally moderate levels of fair value change, these charges are not expected to be material. For each period going forward, including 1H 2021, we will accrue against new fair value gains at the rate shown for each vintage in the preceding table; for example, for 2019 vintage matters, for every $100 of net fair value increase, we will accrue $6 of compensation expense. In the event of fair value losses, the respective accrual would reverse. This accrual is an entirely non-cash event; we will still only crystallize and pay compensation upon realized gains. In the first half of 2021, based on all the fair value gains in the period, the expense accrual was less than $1 million. The question then arises as to the existing accumulation of fair value gains, which are predominantly composed of fair value gains on our YPF-related assets. For the sake of consistency, we are going to take a one-time non-cash charge of $45 million to align with the current balance sheet assets. This is a one-time charge related to prior fair value gains; 70% of it is due to the substantial carrying value of the YPF-related assets. While this is a large number, it is entirely non-cash and simply matches a future potential gain expressed through a fair value change with a future potential expense instead of leaving the related expense until the point of realization. None of this money is being paid out, nor will it be unless and until there are realized gains in the underlying matters. For perspective, our YPF-related cases would have to generate more than $1.6 billion in cash in a litigation outcome for the present YPF-related accrual to be paid in full; we cite that number for illustrative purposes only given the current carrying value and this does not constitute a projection of any expected outcome in the matter. Moreover, we did not pay incentive compensation based on the secondary market sales of those YPF-related assets. We believe our compensation levels are moderate and appropriate, and while this change in approach is both consistent with IFRS and will align us better with some other US GAAP issuers, it does not change our cash-focused approach to compensation and to running the business generally. Asset recovery

• Terminated profit-sharing arrangement except as to a small number of grandfathered cases
• One-time non-cash accrual of £25 million ($34 million)

The division between our asset recovery and core litigation finance businesses has continued to blur as they have both evolved, and in 2019 we stopped including asset recovery in our new initiatives segment and incorporated it into our main capital provision segment. In 2021, we have gone a step further and have fully integrated the asset recovery team into the core business. Previously, the team had operated with a separate P&L and a direct profit-sharing component dating from the acquisition of the business in 2015; at the time, we acquired the business for very little current cash and instead used a profit-sharing arrangement as the bulk of the economics. Now, the team participates in Burford's standard compensation programs, including our carry plan. However, the historical profit-sharing approach has been grandfathered with respect to a small number of cases that are at advanced stages of activity. The result of our change in estimating compensation expense to match accounting gains and these revised arrangements is that we will take a non-cash charge of £25 million ($34 million) relating to the carrying value of those matters. These amounts would only potentially be paid upon the receipt of substantial actual cash profits. Financial Results

• Anticipated net loss of approximately $70 million given one-time non-cash accruals
• Approximately $20 million profit after tax if considered on a cash basis

As usual at this stage of our financial reporting cycle, we continue to work through a variety of accounting and tax issues, including fair values, internally and with our auditors in advance of our September 9 interim results reporting date. However, based on our current state of understanding, the combined impact of the non-cash accruals discussed above and the moderate level of asset realizations in the period suggests that we will report a net loss after tax of approximately $70 million, the bulk of which is related to those non-cash accruals. Adjusting for non-cash items (particularly fair value adjustments and the non-cash accruals), non-IFRS profit after tax would be approximately $20 million. Liquidity

• Strong liquidity position of over $430 million

Liquidity at June 30, 2021 was strong, with the aggregate of cash and cash management assets of over $430 million (which does not include the receipt of the $103 million in cash related to the Akhmedov matter in July). Christopher Bogart, Burford Capital's Chief Executive Officer, commented:
"We are very pleased with the level of new business activity we saw in the first half of 2021 and with the continuing strength of our portfolio, notwithstanding a fairly quiet period for portfolio resolutions. We believe that moving to US GAAP and positioning the business in the US capital markets mainstream will inure to the benefit of shareholders. We appreciate shareholders' continued support on this journey, which we believe will result in a larger, stronger, more highly valued company." Definitions and use of alternative performance measures We report our financial results under International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS"). IFRS requires us to present financials that consolidate some of the limited partner interests in funds we manage as well as assets held by our balance sheet where we have a partner or minority investor. We therefore refer to various presentations of our financial results, and funding configuration, as:

• Consolidated refers to assets, liabilities and activities that include those third-party interests, partially owned subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles that we are required to consolidate under IFRS accounting. This presentation conforms to the presentation of Burford on a consolidated basis in our financials. The major entities where there is also a third-party partner in or owner of those entities include the Strategic Value Fund, BOF-C (our arrangement with a Sovereign Wealth Fund) and several entities in which Burford holds investments where there is also a third-party partner in or owner of those entities. Note that in our financial statements, our consolidated presentation is referred to as Group.
• Burford standalone, Burford-only, Burford balance sheet only, "balance sheet" or similar terms refers to assets, liabilities and activities that pertain only to Burford itself, excluding any third-party interests and the portions of jointly owned entities owned by others.
• Group-wide refers to Burford and its managed funds taken together, including those portions of the funds owned by third parties and including funds that are not consolidated into Burford's annual consolidated financials. In addition to the consolidated funds, Group-wide includes the Partners funds (our first three core litigation finance funds), Burford Opportunity Fund and Burford Alternative Income Fund and its predecessor.

We refer to our capital provision assets in two categories:

• Direct, which includes all our legal finance assets (including those generated by asset recovery and legal risk management activities) that we have made directly (i.e., not through participation in a fund) from our balance sheet. We also include direct (not through a fund) complex strategies assets in this category.
• Indirect, which includes our balance sheet's participations in one of our funds. Currently, this category is comprised entirely of our position in the Burford Strategic Value Fund.

We also use certain Alternative Performance Measures ("APMs"), which are not presented in accordance with IFRS, to measure the performance of certain of our assets including:

• Return on invested capital (ROIC) is a measure of financial performance calculated by comparing the absolute amount of realizations from a concluded asset relative to the amount of expenditure incurred in funding that asset, expressed as a percentage figure. In this release, when we refer to our concluded case ROIC, we are referring to the ROIC on concluded and partially concluded capital provision direct assets on Burford's balance sheet since the inception of the company until the current date.
• IRR is a discount rate that makes the net present value of a series of cash flows equal to zero and is expressed as a percentage figure. We compute IRR on concluded (including partially concluded) legal finance assets by treating that entire portfolio (or, when noted, a subset thereof) as one undifferentiated pool of capital and measuring actual and, if necessary, estimated inflows and outflows from that pool, allocating investment cost appropriately. IRRs do not include unrealized gains.
• Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is the annual rate of return that would be required for a sum to grow from its beginning balance to its end balance, assuming reinvestment at the end of each year.
• Profit after tax if considered on a cash basis is a non-IFRS measure comprising profit after tax removing all non-cash items, including but not limited to unrealized losses arising from fair value adjustments and non-cash compensation expense accruals.

Our business activities include:

• Legal finance, which includes our traditional core litigation finance activities in which we are providing clients with financing against the future value of legal claims. It also encompasses our asset recovery and legal risk management activities, which often are provided to the same clients.
• Complex strategies encompasses our activities providing capital as a principal in legal-related assets, often securities, loans and other financial assets where a significant portion of the expected return arises from the outcome of legal or regulatory activity. Most of our complex strategies activities over the past several years have been conducted through our Strategic Value Fund.
• Post-settlement finance includes our financing of legal-related assets in situations where litigation has been resolved, such as financing of settlements and law firm receivables.
• Asset management includes our activities administering the funds we manage for third-party investors.

Other terms we use include:

• Cash receipts provide a measure of the cash that Burford's capital provision assets generate during a given year as well as cash from certain other fees and income. In particular, cash receipts represent the cash generated from capital provision assets, including cash proceeds from realized assets and related hedging assets, plus cash income from asset management fees, services and other income, before any deployments into funding existing or new assets.
• Commitment is the amount of financing we agree to provide for a legal finance asset. Commitments can be definitive (requiring us to provide funding on a schedule, or more often, when certain expenses are incurred) or discretionary (only requiring us to provide funding after reviewing and approving a future matter). Unless otherwise indicated, commitments include deployed cost and undrawn commitments.
• Deployment refers to the funding provided for an asset, which adds to Burford's invested cost in that asset. We use the term interchangeably with addition.
• Deployed cost is the amount of funding we have provided for an asset as of the applicable point in time.
• Liquidity refers to the amount of cash and cash management assets on our balance sheet.
• Portfolio refers to the total amount of our capital provision and post-settlement assets, valued at deployed cost plus any fair value adjustments and any undrawn commitments.
• Realization: A legal finance asset is realized when the asset is concluded (when litigation risk has been resolved). A realization will result in Burford receiving cash or, occasionally, some other asset or recognizing a due from settlement receivable, reflecting what Burford is owed on the asset. We use the term interchangeably with recovery.
• Realized gain/loss refers to the total amount of gain or loss generated by a legal finance asset when it is realized, calculated simply as realized proceeds less deployed funds, without regard for any previously recognized fair value adjustment.
• YPF-related assets refers to our Petersen and Eton Park legal finance assets, which are two claims relating to Argentina's nationalization of YPF, the Argentine energy company.

For additional information, including reconciliations of our non-IFRS financial measures to the corresponding IFRS figures, see our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2020 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021. About Burford Capital
Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, Singapore and Sydney. For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com. This communication shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford. This release does not constitute an offer of any Burford fund. Burford Capital Investment Management LLC ("BCIM"), which acts as the fund manager of all Burford funds, is registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The information provided herein is for informational purposes only. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The information contained herein is not, and should not be construed as, an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities (including, without limitation, interests or shares in the funds). Any such offer or solicitation may be made only by means of a final confidential Private Placement Memorandum and other offering documents. Forward-looking statements
This announcement contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events. These statements are intended as "forward-looking statements". In some cases, predictive, future-tense or forward-looking words such as "aim", "anticipate", "believe", "continue", "could", "estimate", "expect", "forecast", "guidance", "intend", "may", "plan", "potential", "predict", "projected", "should" or "will" or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. In addition, we and our representatives may from time to time make other oral or written statements which are forward-looking statements, including in our periodic reports that we file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, other information sent to our security holders, and other written materials. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future. We caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are based on  numerous assumptions and that our actual results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, may differ materially from (and be more negative than) those made in, or suggested by, the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement. Significant factors that may cause actual results to differ from those we expect include those discussed under "Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021. In addition, even if our results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, those results or developments may not be indicative of results or developments in subsequent periods. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, whether as a result of new information, future events, a change in our views or expectations or otherwise. SOURCE: Burford Capital

Legal-Bay, The Presettlement Funding Company, reports that Bayer is reassessing its efforts to settle the numerous lawsuits they are facing due to their Roundup brand weed killer. It is estimated that 30,000 plaintiffs still have outstanding suits against Monsanto (a subsidiary of Bayer), claiming the company's product is directly responsible for making them sick.  Certain cancers are alleged to have been caused by the glyphosate-based herbicide including non Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer has agreed to pay compensation on some claims, even while disputing liability on others. However, it has already been ruled that it will take $9 billion to settle over 100,000 existing claims—four claims alone had jury verdicts of $2 billion as well but are in appeals. At this time, Legal-Bay's sources report that they are unaware of any victims who have been paid any actual funds from Monsanto, despite the settlement being reached over a year ago. There are no guarantees that the company will settle these suits, and no exact numbers can be provided for payout amounts at this time. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We continue to assist and fund victims of Roundup despite no timeline as to when settlements will be ruled upon or when payouts will actually occur.  It is clear that Covid has slowed the payment process, but at this point the defendant seems to be dragging their feet unnecessarily." If you are involved in a Roundup weed killer lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance against your pending settlement, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405 Legal-Bay's pre settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse law suit loans—sometimes referred to as loans for lawsuit or loans on settlement—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit loan isn't really a loan, but rather a cash advance. To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

Liti Capital’s wLITI token, a wrapped version of the Swiss company’s LITI equity token, has been listed on the Bitcoin.com Exchange on 24 August at 10:00AM UTC. wLITI is trading with BTC and USDT pairs. Liti Capital, a Swiss-based blockchain private equity fund specializing in raising capital for legal cases, is making waves in traditional investing by bringing litigation financing to the masses, an investment practice traditionally monopolized by hedge fund heavyweights and elite investors. Just last week, 19 August 2021, Liti Capital announced that it was funding a claim (www.binanceclaim.com) against Binance, which would enable affected individuals to pursue claims, including, if necessary, in arbitration, for compensation in relation to the exchange failing on 19 May 2021. This failure resulted in the trading accounts (including Futures, Margin, and Leveraged Token products) of at least 700 and potentially thousands of individuals being effectively untradeable for hours, causing traders to suffer losses that could exceed one hundred million dollars. Litigation financing is the practice of bringing in investors to cover the cost of a lawsuit or arbitration in exchange for a portion of the profit. Litigation financing specialists, such as Liti Capital, purchase litigation assets for cases they deem to have a high chance of winning. While litigation financing often requires an initial investment of $500,000 to $1 million from an investor, Liti Capital makes it accessible for anyone with as little as $50. It does this by tokenizing shares in Liti Capital and paying out dividends to Liti Capital (LITI) equity token holders when a case in Liti Capital’s portfolio is won. Liti Capital has already secured a healthy case portfolio with its largest case potentially worth more than $1 billion when it finally settles. Cases like these, which tend to be commercial rather than consumer or personal lawsuits, usually target large-scale corporate disputes valued at more than $10 million. While they could take years before a settlement is reached, successful litigation funders can expect to pocket between three and five times their initial investments, according to estimates by litigation finance expert Steven Friel. What is wLITI? wLITI is an ERC-20 token that is the wrapped version of the LITI equity token. Launched on June 29, 2021, the wLITI token is suitable for trading on exchanges such as Bitcoin.com, whereas the LITI token is only available through liticapital.com after meeting KYC requirements. Liti Capital uses the blockchain to manage its share registry. Development of its own blockchain-based case management tools is on its roadmap. Switzerland-based Liti Capital creates wLITI at a LITI token buyer’s request via Liti Capital’s app or website, which converts the LITI to wLITI at a 1:5000 ratio. The tokens will always maintain this ratio. The buyer is then able to trade their wLITI freely. Liti Capital does not directly sell wLITI. LITI is a true digital share of Liti Capital that has voting rights, pays dividends and is protected under Swiss law. LITI is purposely not designed to be on exchanges at this time. Both tokens represent Liti Capital, whose mantra is “private equity for all.” Liti Capital works exclusively in a single form of private equity – Litigation Finance, also called third party funding. This asset class has remained almost entirely exclusive to hedge funds and venture capitalists since its inception several decades ago. Litigation Finance is the practice of financing all or part of a legal case on behalf of a plaintiff for an agreed upon percentage of the court award. Once Liti Capital purchases a portion of ownership of a case, it provides capital that can be used in many ways: legal fees, case management and strategy, expert witnesses, intelligence work and whatever else is needed to give the plaintiff the best chance of winning the case and collecting the award. The portion owned by Liti Capital becomes a “litigation asset” that backs the LITI token. A Strong Endorsement Danish Chaudhry, CEO of Bitcoin.com Exchange, shared his views on wLiti’s listing, saying,“The Liti Capital team are providing an equity token which is the first of its kind, focused around easy-to-access private equity investment opportunities for basically anyone with the help of blockchain technology.” Chaudhry continues on by saying: “We’re very excited to see how Liti Capital will continue to empower their vision, and gain further outreach with our outstanding community at the exchange.” Jonas Rey, CEO of Liti Capital, said, “Listing on Bitcoin.com Exchange is an excellent opportunity for us, and a milestone we are proud of. We have full confidence that once the public discovers just how valuable the litigation assets we are able to purchase on behalf of LITI investors are and how powerful blockchain-backed private equity trading can be, that wLITI will become a very popular token indeed.” Listing details Trading Opening: Aug. 24, 2021, 10:00AM UTC Deposit Opening: Aug 24, 2021, 09:00AM UTC Trading Pairs: wLITI/BTC wLITI/USDT About Bitcoin.com Exchange The mission of Bitcoin.com Exchange is to empower people from all over the world to trade cryptocurrencies with ease and confidence, from first-time traders to advanced trading professionals. With high liquidity, 24/7 multilingual support and dozens of trading pairs, complemented with a high level of security, we offer an attractive platform for trading any cryptocurrency. Within one year since launch, on average, the exchange has been visited by more than 500K active traders per month, and this number continues to grow by the minute. About Liti Capital Switzerland-based Liti Capital is a Swiss limited liability company specializing in litigation finance and fintech. Liti Capital buys litigation assets to fund lawsuits and provides a complete strategic solution along with connections to top law firms to help clients win their cases. Tokenized shares of the company lower the barrier of entry for retail investors and give token holders a vote in the company’s decision-making process. Dividends are distributed to LITI token holders upon the success of the plaintiff. Jonas Rey, co-founder of Liti Capital, also heads Athena Intelligence, one of the most successful intelligence agencies in Switzerland. His two co-founders, Andy Christen and Jaime Delgado, bring operational, innovation and technical skills to round out the leadership team. Liti Capital recently onboarded seasoned industry leader David Kay as chief information officer and executive chairman. Boasting more than a decade of experience as funding partner and portfolio manager of a billion-dollar private equity fund in the litigation financing space, Kay successfully enforced what was at the time the largest international arbitration award in history, bringing in over $1 billion in cash and securities.